GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

JUVENILE JUSTICE

DOJ Is Enhancing 

Information on 

Effective Programs, 

but Could Better 

Assess the Utility of 

This Information 

December 2009 

GAO-10-125 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2009

JUVENILE JUSTICE

DOJ Is Enhancing Information on Effective Programs, 

but Could Better Assess the Utility of This

Highlights of GAO-10-125, a report to the Information 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security, 

Committee on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives 

State juvenile justice systems face 

critical problems when it comes to 

juvenile delinquency issues such as 

reentry—when offenders return 

home from incarceration—and 

substance abuse. GAO was asked 

to review juvenile reentry and 

substance abuse program research 

and efforts by the Department of 

Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) to provide 

information on effective programs 

(i.e., whether a program achieves 

its intended goal) and costbeneficial programs (i.e., whether 

the benefits of programs exceeded 

their costs). This report addresses 

(1) expert opinion and available 

research on these types of reentry 

and substance abuse programs, 

(2) the extent to which OJJDP 

assesses its efforts to disseminate 

information on effective programs, 

and (3) OJJDP’s plans to 

accomplish its research and 

evaluation goals. GAO, among 

other things, reviewed academic 

literature, and OJJDP’s 

dissemination efforts and research 

goals. GAO also interviewed OJJDP 

officials and a nonprobability 

sample of 26 juvenile justice 

experts selected based on their 

experience with juvenile reentry 

and substance abuse issues. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OJJDP 

develop a cost-effective mechanism 

to regularly solicit and incorporate 

feedback from the juvenile justice 

field on the usefulness of 

information in the Model Programs 

Guide. DOJ concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation. 

The majority of the juvenile justice reentry and substance abuse experts GAO 

interviewed cited evidence that shows cognitive behavioral therapy—

programs that help individuals change their beliefs in order to change their 

behavior—and family therapy—programs that treat juveniles by focusing on 

improving communication with family members—are effective and cost 

beneficial when addressing reentry and substance abuse issues. For example, 

two juvenile reentry experts cited studies showing that 1 year after 

participating in a cognitive behavioral therapy program, participants were less 

likely to commit another offense than nonparticipants. Additionally, experts 

cited a study that reported that a family therapy program provides about 

$80,000 in savings per participant when accounting for savings from a decline 

in crime, such as the cost the police would have incurred. Most experts 

indicated that there was limited evidence on the effectiveness and cost 

benefits of reentry programs, such as aftercare—programs that assist juvenile 

offenders in returning to their communities during the reentry process—and 

substance abuse programs, such as drug courts—specialized courts that 

provide programs for substance-abusing juveniles and their families. 

GAO reviewed two OJJDP efforts that provide information on effective 

programs across the range of juvenile justice issues, the National Training and 

Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) and the Model Programs Guide. OJJDP 

has mechanisms in place to regularly assess the utility of the information 

provided by NTTAC, but does not have such a mechanism for the guide. 

OJJDP ensures the utility of NTTAC’s information through evaluations in 

accordance with federal guidelines that highlight the importance of 

regularly soliciting feedback from users. However, OJJDP could better 

ensure the utility of the information disseminated by the Model Programs 

Guide by having a mechanism in place to solicit regular feedback from 

members of the juvenile justice field—for example, program practitioners—

that is specifically related to the guide. 

OJJDP has articulated research and evaluation goals to support its mission of 

improving the juvenile justice system and is developing plans to assist in 

meeting these goals. OJJDP is required under the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended, to publish an annual program plan 

that describes planned activities under accounts authorized for research and 

evaluation activities, among other things. Additionally, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) recommended that OJJDP develop a 

comprehensive evaluation plan for juvenile justice programs. While OJJDP 

has not published an annual program plan since 2002, in December of 2009, it 

issued a proposed plan for public comment and aims to publish the final 

program plan once public comments are incorporated. Additionally, although 

the office has considered developing a comprehensive evaluation plan to 

address OMB recommendations, it had not previously done so because of a 

lack of resources. However, OJJDP is committed to developing a 

comprehensive evaluation plan once the program plan is finalized. 

View GAO-10-125 or key components.

For more information, contact Eileen Larence 

at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-125 

Contents 

Letter 1

Scope and Methodology 4 

Background 8 

Experts Cite Evidence from Available Research Indicating That 

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Family Therapy Programs Are 

Effective and Cost Beneficial When Addressing Reentry and 

Substance Abuse Issues 12 

OJJDP Has Mechanisms in Place to Ensure Training and Technical 

Assistance Meet Users’ Needs, but Regular Feedback on the 

Model Programs Guide Would Help OJJDP Better Assess 

Information Utility 24 

Finalizing a Program Plan and Developing a Comprehensive 

Evaluation Plan Would Help OJJDP Achieve Its Research and 

Evaluation Goals and Use Its Limited Resources Effectively 30 

Conclusions 36 

Recommendation for Executive Action 37 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Juvenile Justice Reentry and Substance Abuse 

Experts We Interviewed 39 

Appendix II Juvenile Justice Experts’ Views on Factors That Can 

Help Programs Achieve Intended Outcomes 41 

Appendix III OJJDP’s Enacted Appropriations for Fiscal Years 

2007 through 2009 45 

Appendix IV Juvenile Reentry and Substance Abuse Programs 

OJJDP Funded through Discretionary Grants 47 

Appendix V Experts’ Opinions of Reentry Programs That Lack 

Conclusive Evidence of Effectiveness 49 

Juvenile Justice Programs 
Appendix VI Experts’ Opinions of Substance Abuse Programs That 

Lack Conclusive Evidence of Effectiveness 54 

Appendix VII Additional OJJDP Efforts to Disseminate Information 

about Effective Juvenile Justice Programs 57 

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Justice 58 

Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60 

Tables 

Table 1: Types of Juvenile Reentry Programs 9 

Table 2: Types of Juvenile Substance Abuse Programs 10 

Table 3: Examples of Net Benefits of Program Interventions within 

Reentry and Substance Abuse Program Types We 

Reviewed from Four Studies Cited by Experts 23 

Table 4: OJJDP Funds Authorized and Used for Research and 

Evaluation, Fiscal Year 2008 34 

Table 5: Juvenile Justice Experts We Interviewed about Juvenile 

Reentry or Substance Abuse Programs 39 

Table 6: Juvenile Justice Enacted Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2007 

through 2009 45 

Table 7: OJJDP Juvenile Reentry and Substance Abuse Programs 

Funded through Discretionary Grants, Fiscal Years 2007 

through 2009 47 

Table 8: Additional OJJDP Efforts to Disseminate Information on 

Effective Programs 57 

Page ii GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Page 1 GAO-10-125 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

December 17, 2009 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Although the juvenile arrest rate is near its lowest point in two decades, 

critical problems affecting states’ juvenile justice systems remain, such as 

recidivism—the act of committing new offenses after having been arrested 

or convicted of a crime—and substance abuse—a pattern of use of illegal, 

prescription, or nonprescription drugs leading to significant impairment in 

functioning. Reentry, the return of juvenile offenders1

 from residential 

facilities back into their communities, aims to reduce recidivism by using 

programs that promote the effective reintegration of juvenile offenders 

and assist them in acquiring the life skills needed to succeed and become 

law-abiding citizens.2

 According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 

approximately 100,000 juvenile offenders are held in residential facilities 

in the United States on a given day, and most of these juveniles will likely 

leave these facilities and return home to their communities each year.3

Further, DOJ has estimated that 62 percent of juveniles in residential 

facilities self-reported having had at least one prior commitment in the 

1

A juvenile offender is a youth under the age of 18 who is too young to be tried as an adult, 

and who has been found to have committed an offense that would be criminal if committed 

by an adult. 

2

Residential facilities house juveniles who are awaiting adjudication (i.e., resolution of a 

case by a judge) or have been adjudicated for an offense, or juveniles who are removed 

from their homes because of nondelinquency issues, such as being victims of child abuse. 

3

This number is based on data from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (the 

Census), which takes 1-day population counts of juveniles placed in residential facilities 

across states. The number of juveniles placed in residential facilities ranged from about 

108,000 in 1999 to around 93,000 in 2006, based on the most recently conducted Census. 

The Census does not capture data on juveniles held in adult prisons or jails nor does it 

include facilities exclusively intended for drug or mental health treatment, even though 

such facilities may house juvenile offenders. 

Juvenile Justice Programs
 

juvenile justice system.4 Additionally, substance abuse plays a significant 

role in juvenile crime. 

In addition, in a 2008 annual survey of members conducted by the Federal 

Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice,5

 reentry of offenders into 

communities and schools (28 states) and substance abuse (21 states) were 

two of the top three programmatic issues most frequently reported as 

affecting these states’ juvenile justice systems.6

 Specifically, concerns 

were noted about the minimal number of programs available to help 

juveniles reenter communities, the large number of inexperienced 

practitioners operating programs, and the limited substance abuse 

treatment options. Related to research and policy, the most common issue 

state officials cited was the need to identify effective practices for juvenile 

programs (23 states) followed by the need to enhance the states’ 

capacities to conduct juvenile research and collect data about juvenile 

programs (20 states). Respondents also cited the need for federal agencies 

and state governments to collaborate on conducting research and 

evaluations to provide a better explanation of (1) practices that have been 

evaluated and have been shown to be effective, (2) the need for more 

 

4

This estimate, the most recent available as reported in the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) 2006 National Report, is derived from the 2003 Survey of 

Youth in Residential Placement, which consists of anonymous interviews with a large, 

nationally representative sample of juvenile offenders placed, or committed, in residential 

facilities. The universe for this survey is the population of juvenile offenders ages 10 to 20 

in all facilities included in the 2003 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. There is 

no national recidivism rate for juveniles since juvenile justice systems vary across states. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile 

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report (Washington, D.C., 2006). 

5

The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice is an advisory body established by 

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, to, among other 

things, advise the President and Congress on state perspectives regarding the operation of 

OJJDP and on federal legislation pertaining to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. 

42 U.S.C. § 5633(f). The committee consists of appointed representatives from advisory 

groups in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories. As part 

of its mandated responsibilities, the committee submits two annual reports—one to the 

President and Congress and the second to the OJJDP Administrator. These reports are 

informed by data gathered through an annual request for information from the individual 

state and territory advisory groups. Specifically, 47 of 55 states and territories (responses 

were only requested from 4 of the 5 U.S. territories) responded to the 2008 request. 

6

The most frequently cited issue was mental health assessment and treatment (38 states). 

Respondents cited concerns about the lack of resources and funding available for mental 

health programs, the minimal number of treatment services available, the minimal number 

of trained staff operating programs, and the limited mental health treatment options. 

Page 2 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

training from federal agencies on how to conduct evaluations, and 

(3) increased funding to establish evaluation procedures (23 states). 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is 

DOJ’s office charged with providing national leadership, coordination, and 

resources to help prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and 

victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to 

develop and implement effective programs to prevent delinquency and 

intervene after a juvenile has offended, among other things. For example, 

from fiscal years 2007 through 2009, Congress provided OJJDP almost 

$1.1 billion to use for grants to states, localities, and organizations for a 

variety of juvenile justice programs. In support of its mission, the office 

also disseminates information to states and communities related to a 

number of juvenile justice issues, including effective reentry and 

substance abuse programs, and funds research and evaluations of juvenile 

justice programs. 

States and localities develop and implement programs that specifically 

target facilitating reentry and reducing substance abuse; therefore, it is 

important that federal, state, and local agencies that provide grants for 

programs, as well as practitioners operating programs, have information 

about which ones are effective and cost beneficial. Having such 

information will better position these agencies to help ensure that federal, 

state, and local funds are well spent. In general, effectiveness is 

determined through program evaluations, which are systematic studies 

conducted to assess how well a program is working—that is, whether a 

program produced its intended results or effects. Additionally, cost-benefit 

analyses can help determine if the dollar value of a program’s success—

such as a reduction in recidivism—exceeds the cost of the program. To 

help ensure the effective use of grant funds for juvenile reentry and 

juvenile substance abuse programs, you asked us to review the available 

research as well as OJJDP’s efforts to provide information about effective 

programs to the juvenile justice field, that is, program practitioners and 

communities. In addition, you asked us to provide information on OJJDP’s 

research and evaluation planning. Specifically, this report addresses the 

following questions: 

• What do expert opinion and available research indicate about the types of 

juvenile reentry programs and juvenile substance abuse programs that are 

effective or cost beneficial? 

• To what extent does OJJDP have efforts under way to disseminate 

information about effective juvenile justice programs and assess the utility 

of the information it is providing through these efforts? 

Page 3 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

• To what extent does OJJDP have plans in place to accomplish its juvenile 

justice research and evaluation goals? 

To determine what experts and the available research indicate about the 

types of reentry programs and substance abuse programs that are effective 

or cost beneficial for juvenile offenders, we reviewed relevant literature, 

studies, and federal resources for juvenile justice programs, and 

interviewed federal officials and 26 juvenile justice experts.7

 Specifically, 

to identify the types of programs to review, we conducted a literature 

search for studies and articles, including evaluations of juvenile reentry 

and juvenile substance abuse programs in the United States that were 

published from May 30, 1999, through May 30, 2009. We chose this time 

frame, the past 10 years, because it provided us with an overview of the 

available research, including unpublished and ongoing studies, which 

assesses the effectiveness of reentry and substance abuse programs. We 

also consulted with OJJDP officials who coordinate research on juvenile 

justice programs and Department of Health and Human Services officials 

who oversee substance abuse and adolescent programs to obtain their 

recommendations for repositories—online databases that contain 

information on effective programs—and research studies and relevant 

Web sites for identifying types of reentry and substance abuse programs.8

Using these recommendations, information from relevant literature, and 

categories of program types used by OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide, we 

identified five types of juvenile justice programs that are used to address 

Scope and 

Methodology 

 

7

GAO defines an expert as a person who is recognized by others who work in the same 

subject matter area as having knowledge that is greater in scope or depth than that of most 

people working in that area. The expert’s knowledge can come from education, experience, 

or both. 

8

Repositories and Web sites we identified include OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration’s National Registry of 

Evidence-based Programs and Practices, University of Colorado’s Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention, and the National Institute of Justice. 

Page 4 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

reentry issues and five types of programs that are used to address 

substance abuse issues for juvenile offenders.9

Specifically related to substance abuse, we focused on substance abuse 

programs that involved relapse prevention treatment for juvenile offenders 

with substance abuse histories.10 After consulting with experts and 

reviewing the literature, we excluded juvenile alcohol abuse programs and 

substance abuse programs for the general juvenile population as well as 

at-risk juveniles who are prone to, but have not yet developed, substance 

abuse problems. For instance, we excluded after school or recreation 

programs, conflict resolution programs, and school or classroom 

programs. While all of these programs may have a substance abuse 

component, this component is not designed to address juvenile offenders’ 

actual substance abuse problems. 

After identifying the types of programs to be reviewed, we looked at online 

databases, academic research, and professional organizations to select 

subject matter experts—researchers and practitioners—to obtain their 

views on the types of programs that have been shown to be effective or 

cost beneficial and the basis they used for making such determinations. 

We specifically identified researchers who focus on juvenile reentry issues 

or substance abuse issues and practitioners who operate programs that 

address these issues. We chose 26 experts to interview as a result of this 

process. Specifically, we selected 13 individuals with expertise related to 

juvenile reentry programs, 7 individuals with expertise related to juvenile 

substance abuse programs, and 6 individuals with both juvenile reentry 

and substance abuse program expertise. We selected these experts based 

on several criteria, including their employment histories related to juvenile 

reentry and substance abuse programs and the number of years they spent 

studying, evaluating, or managing programs addressing juvenile reentry or 

substance abuse issues. We evaluated their experience by reviewing the 

 

9

We used program types outlined in the Model Programs Guide because it describes a range 

of potential program types that juvenile offenders may encounter in the juvenile justice 

system. Specifically, the Model Programs Guide is a database that in part is designed to 

provide information on individual intervention programs within these program types. The 

Model Programs Guide categorizes programs by the type of program being administered 

(e.g., vocational training or family therapy), the stage at which the program is administered 

(e.g., prevention, during incarceration, or after return to the community), and the issue area 

the program addresses (e.g., gangs or substance abuse). 

10According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, relapse 

prevention is a variety of interventions designed to teach individuals who are trying to 

maintain behavior changes how to anticipate and cope with the problem of relapse. 

Page 5 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

studies the researchers had completed and determining the experience the 

practitioners had managing the types of juvenile reentry and substance 

abuse programs selected for our review. See appendix I for the list of 

experts we interviewed. 

We asked these experts to provide their views about the effectiveness of 

program types (e.g., drug courts), rather than about the effectiveness of 

individual intervention programs (e.g., a specific drug court program that 

was implemented in one county).11 Because the Model Programs Guide, 

like other online repositories, contains information about the effectiveness 

of individual intervention programs, it does not provide information about 

the effectiveness of program types. As a result, we were interested in 

obtaining the experts’ consolidated views of the effectiveness of program 

types. We also asked the experts to identify other program types—in 

addition to those that we explicitly asked about—that they considered to 

be effective or cost beneficial, but no additional program types were 

mentioned. In addition, we asked the experts to identify factors that in 

their view could help programs to achieve intended outcomes, such as 

reducing participants’ recidivism, which are summarized in appendix II. 

While the results of these interviews cannot be generalized to reflect the 

views of all experts knowledgeable about juvenile reentry or substance 

abuse programs, we believe the interviews provided us with a good 

overview of the available research and valuable information about what 

program types are considered to be effective by subject matter experts. In 

addition, while we did not assess the methodological rigor of studies and 

evaluations in our review, we corroborated expert testimony by reviewing 

and summarizing the studies or evaluations that experts cited as the basis 

for their opinions. We also provided the experts with a summary of their 

opinions to review in order to ensure that we correctly captured their 

views. 

To identify the extent to which OJJDP has efforts under way to 

disseminate information about effective juvenile justice programs and 

assess the extent to which OJJDP ensures the utility of the information 

provided, we reviewed documentation, such as OJJDP’s annual reports 

outlining information dissemination efforts, OJJDP publications, and a 

contract related to disseminating training information on effective 

 

11For the purposes of this review, we define an intervention program as a specific activity, 

treatment, therapy, or service funded at the local, state, or federal level that is intended to 

address the reasons behind a juvenile’s delinquent behavior and prevent the juvenile from 

committing increasingly serious offenses. 

Page 6 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

programs. We interviewed knowledgeable OJJDP officials, such as the 

Training Coordinator and communications policy personnel, about 

OJJDP’s efforts to disseminate information about effective programs. We 

selected two of OJJDP’s efforts through which it disseminates information 

about effective programs—the Model Programs Guide and the National 

Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC), which provides 

training and support to the juvenile justice field in identifying and 

implementing effective programs—because they provide information 

about effective programs across the range of issue areas in which OJJDP is 

involved, including reentry and substance abuse programs. We then 

compared these efforts to guidance articulated by the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP), which oversees OJJDP, and in prior GAO reports that 

stresses the importance of assessing whether the information 

disseminated is meeting the needs of its users.12 We also interviewed 

representatives from the two organizations that manage these two 

information dissemination efforts. Additionally, we asked the 26 juvenile 

reentry and substance abuse experts we interviewed about their views 

regarding OJJDP’s information dissemination efforts and their opinions 

about the effectiveness of these efforts. Although their views cannot be 

generalized to the entire juvenile justice field, we believe that the experts 

provided us with a good overview of the utility of the information 

disseminated by OJJDP. We did not contact recipients of the information 

OJJDP disseminates for their views on the usefulness of the information 

provided because of the large volume of recipients and the resulting cost 

that would be incurred to obtain this input. 

To assess the extent to which OJJDP has plans in place for its research 

and evaluation efforts, we reviewed relevant laws related to the office’s 

role in supporting research and evaluations of juvenile justice programs. 

We also reviewed relevant DOJ and OJJDP documentation, such as annual 

reports and strategic plans that contain information on OJJDP’s research 

and evaluation goals and plans. We interviewed cognizant OJJDP officials 

about the office’s planning efforts related to research and evaluation. We 

also reviewed criteria found in standard practices for program 

management and our prior products that highlight the importance of 

 

12Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJP Information Quality Guidelines 

(Washington, D.C.: 2007). GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve 

Strategic Use and Coordination of Research, GAO-07-904 (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 

2007), and Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the Oversight of DOT’s 

Research Programs and User Satisfaction with Transportation Statistics, GAO-06-917 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2006). 

Page 7 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

developing plans to meet goals and help ensure that resources are used 

effectively, and then compared these criteria to OJJDP’s stated plans.13

Additionally, we analyzed OJJDP funding and staff data for fiscal years 

2005 through 2009 to better understand the resources the office has had 

available to support its evaluation activities. We chose these years because 

they provide the most recent overview of OJJDP’s research and evaluation 

funding. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2009 through December 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Within states’ juvenile justice systems, reentry aims to promote the 

effective reintegration of juvenile offenders back into communities upon 

release from residential facilities. Reentry is a process that incorporates a 

variety of programs to assist juvenile offenders in the transition from 

residential facilities to communities. In addition, reentry is intended to 

assist juvenile offenders in acquiring the life skills needed to succeed in 

the community and become law-abiding citizens and can incorporate the 

use of education, mental health, drug rehabilitation, or vocational training 

programs. While reentry begins after a juvenile is released back into the 

community, to help ensure a seamless transition, a reentry process begins 

after sentencing, then continues through incarceration, and into the period 

of release back into the community. According to OJJDP, juvenile justice 

practitioners and researchers believe that providing supervision and 

services to juvenile offenders returning to the community will reduce the 

high rate of recidivism among these juveniles. Several types of programs 

address juvenile reentry issues, as described in table 1. 

Background 

 

13Program management standards we reviewed are reflected in the Project Management 

Institute’s The Standard for Program Management © (2006). Also, see GAO, South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration: A Strategic Plan and a Process to Resolve Conflicts Are Needed to 

Keep the Effort on Track, GAO/T-RCED-99-170 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 1999); South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Substantial Progress Made in Developing a Strategic 

Plan, but Actions Still Needed, GAO-01-361 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2001); Great Lakes: 

A Coordinated Strategic Plan and Monitoring System Are Needed to Achieve Restoration 

Goals, GAO-03-999T (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2003); and GAO-06-917, 7, 11. 

Page 8 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

Table 1: Types of Juvenile Reentry Programs 

Aftercare—programs that focus on the delivery of services and supervision that start 

while a juvenile is incarcerated to assist juvenile offenders in returning to their 

communities during the reentry process. These programs prepare juvenile offenders to 

return to the community by establishing collaboration with the community and marshaling 

its resources to help ensure that juvenile offenders receive services that address their 

individual needs, such as treatment for a substance abuse problem. 

Cognitive behavioral therapy—programs that are designed to identify and provide 

juveniles the skills to change thoughts and behavior that contribute to their problems. 

Reentry courts—specialized courts that manage the return of juvenile offenders to the 

community after they are released from residential facilities. A court manages reentry by 

using its authority to direct resources to support the offender’s return to the community 

and promote positive behavior, among other things. For example, the court may oversee 

a juvenile’s release into the community by assigning a judge to meet with the juvenile 

once a month. 

Vocational/job training—programs that provide juveniles with employment 

opportunities and are intended to improve juveniles’ social and educational functioning 

by, for example, increasing earnings, raising self-esteem, and instilling a positive work 

ethic. 

Wraparound/case management—a strategy designed to keep delinquent youth at 

home and out of institutions whenever possible. This strategy involves making an array 

of individualized services and support networks available to juveniles, rather than 

requiring them to enroll in structured treatment programs, which may not address 

individual needs. 

Source: OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide. 

Substance abuse includes, but is not limited to, the use or abuse of illegal 

drugs (e.g., heroin), prescription drugs, and nonprescription drugs (e.g., 

over-the-counter medications available without a prescription, such as 

cough suppressant). Treatment of substance abuse may occur in a variety 

of different settings, such as in clinics on an outpatient basis or at a 

hospital. Treatment can also occur in short- and long-term residential 

facilities that range from secure environments where juveniles’ activities 

are physically restricted, to group homes, which are nonsecure settings 

where juveniles live and receive services in a homelike environment. 

According to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, juveniles with 

addictions to substances can be helped through programs that specifically 

target the factors associated with substance abuse—such as a family 

Page 9 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

history of such abuse.14 For example, substance abuse intervention 

programs, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and family therapy, aim to 

change a juvenile’s behavior by focusing on improving a juvenile’s 

response to situations that contributed to prior substance abuse. 

Substance abuse intervention programs can be provided to juvenile 

offenders throughout the juvenile justice system: after sentencing, during 

incarceration, and after release back into the community. Whether 

treatment occurs while a juvenile is incarcerated or after the juvenile is 

released into the community, according to OJJDP, effective intervention 

programs can help addicted juveniles to overcome their substance abuse, 

lead crime-free lives, and become productive citizens. Table 2 describes 

types of programs—in addition to cognitive behavioral therapy and 

wraparound/case management, which are discussed in table 1—that 

address juvenile substance abuse issues. 

Table 2: Types of Juvenile Substance Abuse Programs 

Drug courts—specialized courts established within and supervised by juvenile courts to 

provide intervention programs, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or family therapy, for 

substance-abusing juveniles and their families. 

Family therapy—programs using trained therapists to treat juvenile offenders with 

substance abuse problems by including families of juveniles in the treatment, focusing on 

improving communication and interactions among family members, as well as improving 

overall relationships between juveniles and their families. 

Mentoring—programs that establish a relationship between two or more people over a 

prolonged period of time, where an older, more experienced individual provides support 

and guidance to a juvenile. The goal of mentoring is for the juvenile to develop positive 

adult contact, thereby reducing risk factors, such as exposure to juveniles who use 

substances, while increasing positive factors, such as encouragement for abstaining 

from substance use. 

Source: OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide. 

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) established 

OJJDP in 1974.15 As the only federal office charged exclusively with 

preventing and responding to juvenile delinquency and with helping states 

 

14The mission of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment of the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration, within the Department of Health and Human 

Services, is to promote the quality and availability of community-based substance abuse 

treatment services for individuals and families who need them. The center works with 

states and community-based groups to improve and expand existing substance abuse 

treatment services. 

1542 U.S.C. § 5611. 

Page 10 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

improve their juvenile justice systems, OJJDP supports its mission through 

a variety of activities. For example, OJJDP administers a wide variety of 

grants to states, territories, localities, and public and private organizations 

through formula, block, and discretionary grant programs; provides 

training and technical assistance; produces and distributes publications 

and other products containing information about juvenile justice topics; 

and funds research and evaluation efforts.16 In fiscal year 2009, the total 

appropriation for juvenile justice programs was about $374 million. See 

appendix III for more detailed information on OJJDP’s enacted 

appropriations for fiscal years 2007 through 2009. 

OJJDP, through its various grant programs, has provided funding to states 

and organizations to support juvenile reentry and substance abuse 

programs, although the JJDPA does not specifically require OJJDP to fund 

them. States generally have the authority to determine how formula and 

block grants are allocated and may use these funds to support a range of 

program areas, including programs specifically for reentry or substance 

abuse. For example, from fiscal years 2007 through 2008, OJJDP reported 

that states used approximately $7.1 million in applicable formula and 

block grant funds for programs that target reentry and $19 million in 

formula and block grant funds for programs that target substance abuse, 

representing approximately 1.8 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, of 

such funding for those years. Additionally, from fiscal years 2007 through 

2009, OJJDP awarded a total of approximately $33 million in discretionary 

grants through four juvenile reentry grant programs and three substance 

abuse grant programs. Specifically, in the area of reentry, OJJDP awarded 

a total of $25.4 million to 38 grantees under 4 programs, and in the area of 

substance abuse, OJJDP awarded a total of $7.6 million to 15 grantees 

under 3 programs. See appendix IV for more detail on funding for these 

reentry and substance abuse programs. 

 

16In general, formula and block grant awards provide funds to states in accordance with 

statutory requirements. OJJDP allocates some formula and block grants to states on the 

basis of states’ juvenile populations, while others may be awarded at a fixed level to all 

states. Discretionary grants provide funds to states, units of local government, and 

organizations to administer programs. OJJDP awards discretionary grants to recipients 

through an application process or based on congressional direction. The term “state” 

means any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 42 U.S.C. § 5603. 

Page 11 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

Of the five reentry program types we reviewed, reentry experts reported 

that there is evidence from available research that cognitive behavioral 

therapy reduces recidivism. While experts cited a lack of evidence 

demonstrating that wraparound/case management, aftercare, and 

vocational/job training were effective in achieving results, such as a 

reduction in recidivism, they generally provided positive views on the 

potential results of these three types of programs, based on their own 

experience or knowledge of them.17 Similarly, of the five substance abuse 

program types we reviewed, juvenile substance abuse experts reported 

that there is evidence from available research that cognitive behavioral 

therapy along with family therapy are effective at reducing recidivism and 

show successful results at reducing substance abuse. However, expert 

opinions regarding other substance abuse program types, such as drug 

courts, mentoring, and wraparound/case management, were mixed, with 

experts stating that these program types could be effective, they were 

ineffective, or there was not enough evidence to determine effectiveness. 

Furthermore, both reentry and substance abuse experts cited studies 

indicating that cognitive behavioral therapy and family therapy programs 

are cost beneficial; however, the experts cited limited evidence for 

determining the costs and benefits of the other programs we reviewed. 

Experts Cite Evidence 

from Available 

Research Indicating 

That Cognitive 

Behavioral Therapy 

and Family Therapy 

Programs Are 

Effective and Cost 

Beneficial When 

Addressing Reentry 

and Substance Abuse 

Issues 

 

17In addition to the four program types discussed, we also reviewed reentry courts. 

However, because only 2 of 19 experts provided comments related to reentry courts, we 

included their comments in app. V. 

Page 12 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

Reentry Experts Cited 

Evidence That Cognitive 

Behavioral Therapy Is 

Effective at Reducing 

Recidivism but Concluded 

That Other Programs Lack 

the Evidence Necessary to 

Determine Their 

Effectiveness 

Eleven of the 12 experts we interviewed who provided comments based 

on their knowledge and experience with cognitive behavioral therapy 

stated that evidence from available research shows that these programs 

can be effective at reducing recidivism.18 Cognitive behavioral therapy 

intervention programs are designed to identify and provide juveniles with 

the skills to change thoughts and behaviors that contribute to their 

problems. The underlying principle of these programs is that thoughts 

affect emotions, which then influence behaviors. These intervention 

programs combine two kinds of psychotherapy—cognitive therapy19 and 

behavioral therapy.20 The strategies of cognitive behavioral therapy have 

been used to, among other things, prevent the start of a problem 

behavior—such as violence and criminal activity—or stop the problem 

behavior from continuing. A juvenile offender can receive this type of 

intervention program after sentencing, throughout incarceration, or after 

returning to the community. For example, a cognitive behavioral therapy 

intervention program may provide individual and family services to treat a 

Experts Cited Evidence from 

Available Research 

Demonstrating That Cognitive 

Behavioral Therapy Is Effective 

at Reducing Recidivism 

 

18Twelve out of 19 reentry experts provided specific comments on cognitive behavioral 

therapy as a program type. Not all of the reentry experts provided comments on each 

program type as their comments were based on their particular area(s) of expertise. 

19Cognitive therapy concentrates on thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs and encourages the 

recognition and change of thoughts that contribute to problem behaviors, such as violence, 

criminal activity, substance use, or school-based problem behaviors. For instance when a 

student has trouble completing a math problem and automatically thinks, “I’m stupid, I’m 

not a good student, I can’t do math,” the student is encouraged to replace the negative 

thoughts with more realistic thoughts, such as “this problem is difficult, I’ll ask for help.” 

20Behavioral therapy concentrates on specific actions and environments that either change 

or maintain behaviors. For instance, when people try to stop smoking they are often 

encouraged to change their daily habits—for example, instead of having their daily coffee 

upon waking, which may trigger the urge to have a cigarette, they are encouraged to take a 

morning walk. 

Page 13 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

juvenile offender who has mental health and substance abuse issues. The 

treatment can occur during the juvenile’s transition from incarceration 

back into the community and help the juvenile lower the risk of 

recidivism, connect the family with appropriate community support, assist 

the juvenile in abstaining from drugs, and improve the mental health of the 

juvenile. 

Based on their assessment of the available research, these 11 experts 

stated that cognitive behavioral therapy programs have been shown to be 

effective. Experts identified two meta-analyses21 of cognitive behavioral 

therapy programs that demonstrated effectiveness.22 One such study 

concluded that effective cognitive behavioral therapy programs are 

characterized by the low proportion of juveniles who dropped out of the 

program, as well as the close monitoring of the quality of the treatment 

and adequate training for the providers. In addition, this same study also 

found that 12 months after treatment, the likelihood of a juvenile who 

received cognitive behavioral therapy not recidivating was about one and 

a half times greater than for a juvenile who did not receive the therapy. 

This study also reported that the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy 

were greater for offenders who had a higher risk of recidivism than those 

with a lower risk. Specifically, the best results, in terms of recidivism 

reductions, occurred when high-risk offenders received more intensive 

treatment that targeted criminal thinking patterns. A second study also 

reported that among therapeutic interventions, such as skill building, 

cognitive behavioral therapy was most effective at reducing recidivism.23

The 12th expert stated that the particular cognitive behavioral therapy 

intervention program he was using—aggression replacement training®—

 

21A meta-analysis is a study that is a systematic synthesis of quantitative research results. In 

other words, a meta-analysis of a substance abuse or reentry intervention program involves 

conducting a literature search for all studies that have been conducted on that program, 

evaluating the methodological quality of those studies, and then systematically combining 

the findings of the studies using statistical procedures to calculate the overall effect the 

program has on the various outcomes, such as recidivism and substance abuse. 

22(1) N.A. Landenberger and M. W. Lipsey, “The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral 

Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment,” 

Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol. 1 (2005). (2) M.W. Lipsey, “The Primary 

Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic 

Overview,” Victims and Offenders, vol. 4 (2009). 

23Skill-building programs assist juveniles in developing skills to control their behavior or 

enhance their ability to participate in society in a positive manner. 

Page 14 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

had not been evaluated at his particular program site, so he could not 

draw conclusions as to its effectiveness.24

Despite having generally positive views on the results of wraparound/case 

management, aftercare, and vocational/job training programs based on 

their experience or knowledge of these programs, reentry experts 

reported a lack of evaluations that show conclusive evidence about the 

effectiveness of these programs. Specifically, of the nine experts who 

provided comments on wraparound/case management programs, eight 

offered positive opinions about these programs. For example, two of these 

experts commented that wraparound/case management can be successful 

at reducing recidivism, depending on the quality and availability of 

services provided to juveniles. However, two of these eight experts also 

stated that there was a lack of evaluations demonstrating the effectiveness 

of wraparound/case management programs. One of these experts pointed 

us to a study on a specific wraparound/case management intervention 

program, Wraparound Milwaukee, that showed potentially promising 

results related to a reduction in recidivism rates for juvenile offenders.25

However, another expert cautioned that initial evaluations of 

wraparound/case management programs did not conclusively demonstrate 

the effectiveness of wraparound/case management programs.26 Finally, the 

ninth expert stated that in her experience, wraparound/case management 

interventions are not effective because, for example, juveniles are placed 

into these interventions based on the availability of program staff and 

resources rather than program services being tailored to the individual 

needs of each juvenile. 

Reentry Experts Indicated 

Positive Views of 

Wraparound/Case 

Management, Aftercare, and 

Vocational/Job Training 

Programs, but Stated That 

These Programs Lacked 

Evidence to Demonstrate 

Effectiveness 

 

24Aggression replacement training®

 is an intervention program designed to alter the 

behavior of chronically aggressive juveniles, such as those who have continual problems 

managing their anger. The goal of the program is to improve skill competence, anger 

control, and moral reasoning. 

25Bruce Kamradt, Stephen Gilbertson, and Nancy Lynn, “Wraparound Milwaukee: Program 

Description and Evaluation,” Outcomes for Children and Youth with Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders and Their Families, ed. Michael H. Epstein et al. (Austin: ProEd, 

2005), 307. 

26Wraparound Milwaukee is an intervention program for juveniles with serious emotional, 

behavioral, and mental health needs and for their families. This intervention program 

attempts to meet the mental health, substance abuse, social service, and other supportive 

needs of juveniles in the Milwaukee community by identifying the specific personal, 

community, and professional services each family needs to care for a juvenile with special 

needs. 

Page 15 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

In addition, 7 of the 15 experts who commented about aftercare programs 

opined that aftercare interventions are important reentry programs, in 

part, because they link a juvenile with the community and provide regular 

contact with a caseworker. However, 6 other experts said there was 

inconclusive evidence to determine whether these programs can be 

effective in achieving results. Three of these experts based their opinions 

on an evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program27 that showed 

inconclusive results about program effectiveness.28 Specifically, the study 

found no evidence that the program had its intended impact of reducing 

recidivism among juveniles who were released back into the community 

under supervision in the three states that piloted the program. However, 

the evaluation did find that the three states that implemented the Intensive 

Aftercare Program model successfully incorporated most of its core 

features, which prepared juveniles to transition back into the community. 

For instance, these states created new Intensive Aftercare Programs—

specific treatment programs that among other things, prepared juveniles 

for increased responsibility in the community, facilitated interaction with 

the community, and worked with the juveniles’ schools and families. The 

state programs had a large percentage of juveniles involved in various 

treatment services. Despite the inconclusive results of the study, 1 expert 

credited the aftercare program model with addressing the issue of 

juveniles interacting with multiple probation officers throughout the entire 

reentry process because aftercare programs, in general, assign one 

probation officer to a juvenile as a consistent point of contact. The 

remaining 2 of 15 experts opined that aftercare intervention programs had 

not been shown to be effective at achieving desired results because, for 

example, the treatment a juvenile receives depends on the services 

available in the community. 

With respect to vocational/job training programs, 10 of the 11 reentry 

experts who commented on these programs expressed positive opinions 

about the programs’ potential outcomes but noted that there had been 

limited research conducted to demonstrate their effectiveness. 

Specifically, experts noted that vocational/job training programs could be 

 

27The Intensive Aftercare Program was a program initiative funded by OJJDP from 1987 

until 2000 that was intended to reduce recidivism among juveniles who are released back 

into the community under supervision.

28Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2005). 

Page 16 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

beneficial if they were applied to older juveniles and if they led to those 

juveniles getting jobs. The remaining expert said there is little evidence to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of these intervention programs. For a more 

detailed description of reentry experts’ opinions about these program 

types, see appendix V. 

Substance Abuse Experts 

Cited Evidence That 

Cognitive Behavioral 

Therapy and Family 

Therapy Are Effective at 

Reducing Recidivism and 

Can Help to Reduce 

Substance Abuse, but Said 

That Evidence of 

Effectiveness Was Lacking 

for the Other Programs 

All of the 13 substance abuse experts we interviewed stated that based on 

available research, cognitive behavioral therapy effectively reduces 

recidivism and has demonstrated success at reducing substance abuse. 

Experts cited six studies to support their opinions, two of which were the 

same studies cited by reentry experts that demonstrate that cognitive 

behavioral therapy is effective at reducing recidivism.29 Two of the 

substance abuse experts noted that few studies have been conducted to 

determine whether an intervention program is effective at specifically 

reducing substance abuse. However, 3 experts also noted that within the 

last decade, newly emerging research has shown promising results with 

Experts Cited Evidence from 

Available Research Showing 

Cognitive Behavioral and 

Family Therapies Effectively 

Reduce Recidivism and 

Demonstrate Success at 

Reducing Substance Abuse 

 

29(1) Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options 

to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates 

(Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, October 2006). (2) M. 

Dennis, S. Godley, G. Diamond, F. Tims, T. Babor, J. Donaldson, H. Liddle, J. Titus, Y. 

Kaminer, C. Webb, N. Hamilton, and R. Funk, “The Cannabis Youth Treatment Study: Main 

findings from two randomized trials,” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, vol. 27 

(2004). 

(3) Landenberger and Lipsey, “Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs,” 451. 

(4) Lipsey, “Primary Factors,” 124. (5) H. B. Waldron and C. W. Turner, “Evidence-Based 

Psychosocial Treatments for Adolescent Substance Abuse,” Journal of Clinical Child & 

Adolescent Psychology, vol. 37, no. 1 (2008). (6) H. B. Waldron and Y. Kaminer, “On the 

Learning Curve: The Emerging Evidence Supporting Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies for 

Adolescent Substance Abuse,” Addiction, vol. 99 (2004). 

Page 17 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

respect to cognitive behavioral therapy program types reducing substance 

abuse. For example, these experts pointed us to three studies that report 

that juveniles who participated in these programs showed reductions in 

marijuana use.30

Twelve of the 13 substance abuse experts we interviewed who provided 

comments based on their knowledge and experience stated that family 

therapy programs are effective at reducing recidivism or decreasing 

substance use.31 Family therapy uses trained therapists to treat juvenile 

offenders with substance abuse problems by including families of 

juveniles in the treatment and focusing on improving communication and 

interactions among family members and improving overall relationships 

between juveniles and their families. This type of therapy focuses on the 

family as it is the primary and sometimes only source for emotional 

support, moral guidance, and self-esteem for juveniles. Family habits, such 

as failing to set clear expectations for children’s behavior, poor monitoring 

and supervision, and severe and inconsistent discipline can often lead to 

juveniles engaging in delinquency and substance abuse, according to 

OJJDP. For example, family drug use often results in adolescent drug use. 

Based on their assessment of the available research, these 12 experts 

provided positive opinions about the effectiveness of family therapy, and 7 

 

30(1) Waldron and Kaminer, “On the Learning Curve: The Emerging Evidence Supporting 

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies for Adolescent Substance Abuse,” 93. (2) Waldron and 

Turner, “Evidence-Based Psychosocial Treatments for Adolescent Substance Abuse,” 238. 

(3) Dennis et al., “The Cannabis Youth Treatment Study: Main findings from two 

randomized trials,” 197. 

31Not all 13 of the substance abuse experts provided comments on each program type as 

their comments were based on their particular area(s) of expertise. 

Page 18 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

of these experts cited 9 studies that support their opinions.32 These studies 

demonstrated, for example, that multisystemic therapy—a family therapy 

intervention program that helps parents identify strengths and develop 

natural support systems (e.g., extended family, neighbors, friends, and 

church members)—is an effective intervention program for reducing 

recidivism and substance use because, for example, juveniles who 

participated in multisystemic therapy programs engaged in significantly 

less criminal activity than did nonparticipants. Specifically, multisystemic 

therapy participants had fewer average convictions per year for violent 

crimes than those juveniles who did not participate in the program. 

Additionally, analyses of drug tests demonstrated significantly higher rates 

of drug abstinence for program participants than for nonparticipants. One 

study also showed that participants in functional family therapy, another 

family therapy intervention program, had 50 percent reductions in 

substance use as compared to juveniles who did not participate in the 

program.33

 

32(1) Aos et al., Benefits and Costs. (2) Dennis et al., “The Cannabis Youth Treatment 

Study: Main findings from two randomized trials,” 197. (3) P. Greenwood, “Prevention and 

Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders,” The Future of Children, vol. 18, no. 2 

(2008). (4) A. Sheidow and S. Henggeler, “Multisystemic Therapy with Substance Using 

Adolescents: A Synthesis of the Research,” Crossing Frontiers (Brighton: Pavilion 

Publishing, 2008). (5) S. Schoenwald, D. Ward, S. Henggeler, S. Pickrel, and H. Patel, 

“Multisystemic Therapy Treatment of Substance Abusing or Dependent Adolescent 

Offenders: Costs of Reducing Incarceration, Inpatient, and Residential Placement,” Journal 

of Child and Family Studies, vol. 5, no. 4 (1996). (6) L. Stambaugh, S. Mustillo, B. Burns, 

R. Stephens, B. Baxter, D. Edwards, and M. DeKraai, “Outcomes From Wraparound and 

Multisystemic Therapy in a Center for Mental Health Services System-of-Care 

Demonstration Site,” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, vol. 15, no. 3 

(2007). (7) S. Henggeler, W. Clingempeel, M. Brondino, and S. Pickrel, “Four-Year Followup of Multisystemic Therapy with Substance-Abusing and Substance-Dependent Juvenile 

Offenders,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol. 

41, no. 7 (2002). (8) M. Lipsey and F. Cullen, “The Effectiveness of Correctional 

Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews,” The Annual Review of Law and Social 

Science, vol. 3 (2007). (9) Waldron and Turner, “Evidence-Based Psychosocial Treatments 

for Adolescent Substance Abuse,” 238. 

33Functional family therapy is a family therapy intervention program that among other 

things, attempts to reduce and eliminate problem behaviors, such as substance abuse, 

through improving communication skills, parenting, problem solving, and conflict 

management while increasing the family’s exposure to community resources to prevent a 

reoccurrence of substance use. 

Page 19 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

According to the 10 experts who commented on drug courts, 5 stated that 

there is a lack of evidence to determine program effectiveness, while 

another expert stated that drug courts are ineffective types of programs 

because they expose first-time offenders to more serious drug users. The 

remaining 4 experts stated that drug courts can be effective if, for 

example, they are combined with other effective intervention programs, 

such as multisystemic therapy. Similarly, according to the 8 experts who 

commented on mentoring, 1 stated that there are too few evaluations to 

determine effectiveness, while 4 stated that mentoring programs alone are 

ineffective or unsuccessful at achieving desired results and that mentoring 

intervention programs are more effective at preventing at-risk juveniles 

from engaging in delinquent behavior.34 However, 3 experts thought 

mentoring intervention programs could be effective if the programs adhere 

to certain factors that have been evaluated and shown to be effective, such 

as the mentor being properly trained.35 Finally, experts also had mixed 

views on the effect of wraparound/case management types of programs. 

Of the 11 experts who commented on these programs, 7 experts stated 

that wraparound/case management is effective or can be effective if, for 

example, wraparound/case management is combined with another 

intervention program that has been evaluated and has shown to be 

effective, such as cognitive behavior therapy. Conversely, 4 experts either 

stated that these programs are ineffective because, for example, the 

intervention programs lack follow-through as there are no consequences if 

a juvenile does not show up for treatment, or there is not sufficient 

evidence to determine effectiveness. For a more detailed description of 

substance abuse experts’ opinions about these program types, see 

appendix VI. 

Experts Had Mixed Views on 

Effectiveness of Drug Courts, 

Mentoring, and 

Wraparound/Case Management 

Types of Programs 

 

34At-risk juveniles are youths who, because of certain characteristics or experiences, are 

statistically more likely than other youths to encounter certain problems, such as legal, 

social, financial, educational, emotional, and health problems. 

35Experts we interviewed noted that several factors could help a program be effective at 

achieving its goals, such as ensuring that juveniles receive programs based on their 

individual needs and ensuring that staff are well trained to correctly implement a specific 

program. See app. II for a summary of these most frequently cited factors. 

Page 20 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

Reentry and Substance 

Abuse Experts Cited 

Available Research That 

Indicates Cognitive 

Behavioral and Family 

Therapies Are Cost 

Beneficial, but Provided 

Limited Evidence of the 

Costs and Benefits of the 

Other Program Types 

While program evaluations establish if a program is effective in producing 

its intended results or effects—such as a reduction in recidivism—costbenefit analyses use program evaluation to determine if the dollar value of 

a program’s benefits exceeds the costs to deliver the program. For 

example, if a program evaluation shows that an intervention program 

reduces the number of offenses committed by juveniles from three to one, 

a cost-benefit analysis would first determine a dollar value for each of the 

offenses. Then, the cost-benefit analysis would estimate whether the 

savings of going from three offenses to one offense is more or less costly 

than the amount of money required to deliver the intervention program, as 

compared to an alternative program the juvenile would have received. The 

intervention may not always be more expensive than the alternative. For 

example, if the alternative is incarceration, the intervention program may 

be less expensive—meaning that the intervention program can be cost 

beneficial even if it does not result in a reduction of offenses. By applying 

the same cost-benefit analysis techniques to evaluations of different 

program types, decision makers can make comparisons among 

alternatives and determine which program types offer the greatest benefits 

for the least cost. The results of a cost-benefit analysis are often 

represented as a net benefit, meaning total benefits minus total cost. 

Of the 26 reentry and substance abuse experts we interviewed, 19 

provided information related to the cost benefits of the reentry and 

substance abuse program types in our review. These 19 experts identified 

five cost-benefit analyses of juvenile justice programs consisting of four 

Page 21 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

meta-analyses36 and one systematic review.37 The studies demonstrate that 

various cognitive behavioral therapy and family therapy intervention 

programs are cost beneficial because they are effective at reducing crime 

and are expected to produce more benefits than costs compared to the 

alternative. For example, in one study, the authors reviewed several 

program interventions that fall into the family therapy program type, such 

as multisystemic therapy and multidimensional treatment foster care.38

The authors analyzed three program evaluations of multidimensional 

treatment foster care and found that this intervention can be expected to 

reduce crime outcomes by 22 percent. Based on this reduction in crime, 

the authors of the study predict that the intervention provides about 

$80,000 worth of benefits per participant. This dollar value reflects the 

savings per participant that result from a decrease in criminal activity, 

including savings to crime victims, police and sheriff’s office costs, and 

juvenile detention costs, among others. 

The four studies cited by the experts show mixed or inconclusive results 

for drug courts, vocational/job training, and mentoring program types. For 

example, one study found that juvenile drug courts are cost beneficial 

because they are expected to have a net benefit of $4,622 per program 

participant. The other studies could not determine drug courts’ costeffectiveness because they either did not include program evaluations of 

 

36The four meta-analyses cited by experts were (1) Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth 

Drake, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, 

Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for 

Public Policy, October 2006); (2) Aos et al., Benefits and Costs; (3) Elizabeth Drake, Steve 

Aos, and Marna Miller, “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and 

Criminal Justice Costs: Implication in Washington State,” Victims and Offenders, vol. 4 

(2009); and (4) Damon Jones, Brian K. Bumbarger, Mark T. Greenberg, Peter Greenwood, 

and Sandee Kyler, The Economic Return on PCCD’s Investment in Research-Based 

Programs: A Cost-Benefit Assessment of Delinquency Prevention in Pennsylvania 

(University Park, Pa.: The Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human 

Development, Pennsylvania State University, 2008). 

37C. McDougall, M. Cohen, R. Swaray, and A. Perry, “Benefit-Cost Analyses of Sentencing,” 

Campbell Systematic Reviews (March 2008). A systematic review is a summary of the 

results of available research on a given topic. The systematic review examined available 

literature about sentencing of both adult and juvenile offenders to determine how many 

cost-benefit analyses of these programs exist and the quality of the studies that had been 

done. Because the systematic review did not examine the specific program types in this 

report, we did not include the review’s assessments of the costs and benefits of sentencing 

options in this report. 

38Multidimensional treatment foster care is an intervention that places juveniles with 

specially trained foster parents instead of in residential facilities. 

Page 22 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

drug court programs or they found mixed results in the program 

evaluations analyzed and therefore could not determine the net benefits. 

In addition, two studies found that there are too few evaluations of 

vocational/job training or mentoring in juvenile justice programs to 

calculate if the benefits of these program types outweigh the costs. The 

remaining program types in our review—wraparound/case management, 

aftercare, and reentry courts—were not analyzed in these studies. Table 3 

presents a summary of these studies. 

Table 3: Examples of Net Benefits of Program Interventions within Reentry and Substance Abuse Program Types We 

Reviewed from Four Studies Cited by Experts 

Examples of the net benefits for interventions within program types 

Studies cited by experts 

Cognitive 

behavioral 

therapya

Family 

therapyb Drug courts

Vocational/job 

training Mentoring

Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to 

Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: 

Implications in Washington State (in 2007 

dollars) 

$23,015 $88,953 Findings are 

mixed 

Too few recent 

evaluations

Too few 

evaluations to 

date

Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early 

Intervention Programs for Youth (in 2003 

dollars) 

$8,805 $24,290 Not included in 

study

Not included in 

study

$5,073

Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to 

Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal 

Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (in 2006 

dollars) 

$14,660 $77,798 $4,622 Too few recent 

evaluations

Too few 

evaluations to 

date

The Economic Return on Pennsylvania’s 

Investment in Research-Based Programs: A 

Cost-Benefit Assessment of Delinquency 

Prevention in Pennsylvania (in 2007 dollars) 

Not included in 

study

$79,331 Not included in 

study

Not included in 

study

Not included in 

study

Source: GAO analysis of four studies cited by experts. 

Notes: Dollar values indicate the highest net benefits for interventions for which net benefits were 

calculated (i.e., for which both cost and benefit data were available) and that experts categorized 

within the program types analyzed in this report. 

Net benefits are discounted, or adjusted, to reflect that costs are incurred when a juvenile initially 

receives the intervention, but savings may not result for many years. 

Net benefits estimates for (1) Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal 

Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State, (2) Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early 

Intervention Programs for Youth, and (3) Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future 

Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates are for expected savings per program 

participant in Washington state. 

The Economic Return on Pennsylvania’s Investment in Research-Based Programs: A Cost-Benefit 

Assessment of Delinquency Prevention in Pennsylvania shows estimated net benefits per program 

participant in Pennsylvania. 

Page 23 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

In cases where there are sizable differences in methodologies between studies, the benefits and 

costs reported cannot be directly compared. For example, there can be differences in the 

methodological criteria for inclusion, the surveys of literature can cover different time periods or 

differing program types, or values for benefits and costs can either come from external literature or 

can be drawn from the studies themselves. 

a

Net benefits are for aggression replacement training®, which is an intervention program categorized 

as cognitive behavioral therapy by the experts. 

b

Net benefits are for multidimensional treatment foster care, which is an intervention program 

categorized as family therapy by the experts. 

In addition, seven experts also commented on reentry and substance 

abuse programs that were not included in the cited studies. For example, 

three experts opined that wraparound/case management programs may 

eventually be proven to be cost beneficial, based on preliminary research 

and evaluations. For example, one expert cited an unpublished study of a 

wraparound program pilot project that showed that recidivism of program 

participants was low, and that program costs were approximately 60 

percent of the costs of incarcerating juveniles. Additionally, although 

experts did not cite cost-benefit analyses of aftercare program types, four 

reentry experts stated that such programs could be cost beneficial if the 

intervention program being delivered is effective because the cost of 

incarceration is so high. Three experts we interviewed stressed that even 

though some intervention programs that have been shown to be effective 

are expensive, if they reduce recidivism, they might be cost beneficial 

because of the high cost of incarcerating juveniles. 

Consistent with the JJDPA, OJJDP has several efforts under way to 

disseminate information about effective juvenile justice programs. Two of 

these efforts—NTTAC and the Model Programs Guide—provide 

information about effective programs for a range of juvenile justice issues, 

including reentry and substance abuse issues. Consistent with federal 

guidelines for ensuring the utility of information, OJJDP has established 

mechanisms to ensure that the information provided through its training 

and technical assistance efforts meets the needs of the juvenile justice 

field. However, OJJDP could better ensure the usefulness of the 

information it disseminates through the Model Programs Guide by having 

a mechanism in place to solicit regular feedback specifically related to the 

guide from the juvenile justice field. 

OJJDP Has 

Mechanisms in Place 

to Ensure Training 

and Technical 

Assistance Meet 

Users’ Needs, but 

Regular Feedback on 

the Model Programs 

Guide Would Help 

OJJDP Better Assess 

Information Utility 

Page 24 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

According to the JJDPA, OJJDP is authorized, but is not required, to 

provide information about juvenile justice issues and programs and to 

provide training and technical assistance to help the juvenile justice field 

implement and replicate such programs.39 In accordance with this 

authority and its mission to support states and communities in their efforts 

to develop and implement effective juvenile justice programs, OJJDP 

disseminates information related to these programs through a range of 

efforts, from those designed to meet the needs of the juvenile justice field 

as a whole to those that focus on effective programs in a specific issue 

area, such as gang prevention or girls’ delinquency. OJJDP distributes the 

broadest range of information on juvenile justice topics through the 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse).40 Through its services, the 

Clearinghouse offers, among other things, the latest research findings and 

statistics, publications on juvenile justice issues and programs, 

announcements of funding opportunities, and other resources prepared by 

a variety of researchers in juvenile justice. As part of its efforts, the 

Clearinghouse responds to requests for information about effective 

programs by directing users to OJJDP efforts that develop and disseminate 

information about effective programs, such as NTTAC and the Model 

Programs Guide. Thus, we focused on NTTAC and the Model Programs 

Guide because they provide information about effective programs across 

the range of issue areas in which OJJDP is involved, including reentry and 

substance abuse programs. OJJDP also disseminates information about 

effective programs in specific issue areas through various centers, such as 

the National Youth Gang Center and the Underage Drinking Enforcement 

Center. For a more detailed discussion of these centers and other 

information dissemination efforts that focus on specific issues, see 

appendix VII. 

OJJDP Disseminates 

Information about 

Effective Juvenile Justice 

Programs through Several 

Efforts 

 

3942 U.S.C. § 5661(e). 

40The Clearinghouse was established in 1979 to provide individuals and organizations with 

access to a comprehensive collection of information and resources on juvenile justice 

topics in a centralized location. The Clearinghouse is responsible for coordinating OJJDP’s 

mailing list, newsletter, publications and editorial services, library and reference services, 

and Web site maintenance. It also coordinates such efforts as the Juvenile Justice 

Listserv—a listserv that provides information on juvenile justice and other youth service–

related publications, funding opportunities, and events; News-at-a-Glance—OJJDP’s 

bimonthly newsletter; as well as OJJDP’s library services, among other things. The 

Clearinghouse is a component of the National Criminal Justice Research Service, which 

offers justice and substance abuse information to support research, policy, and program 

development by providing access to published reports, research findings, and other 

information products. 

Page 25 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

NTTAC was established in 1995, in part to provide information about 

effective juvenile justice programs—such as programs that address issues 

related to reentry and substance abuse—through its training and technical 

assistance efforts.41 According to OJJDP, NTTAC works to promote the use 

of effective programs in the field through training and technical assistance 

programs. Additionally, NTTAC develops training materials and resources, 

and customizes the information included in its curricula in an effort to 

best meet the needs of its training and technical assistance recipients. In 

terms of its efforts specifically related to program effectiveness, NTTAC 

provides training and technical assistance for members of the juvenile 

justice field on how to develop and sustain effective programs, and to help 

the field understand programs that are effective for various juvenile 

populations, such as juveniles with mental health issues or female 

offenders. 

The Model Programs Guide is an online database that contains summary 

information about approximately 200 juvenile justice programs, from 

prevention programs to reentry programs. It is designed to help 

practitioners and communities identify and implement prevention and 

intervention programs that have been evaluated and have been shown to 

be effective.42 Programs in the Model Programs Guide may focus on a 

range of issues, including delinquency, violence, youth gang involvement, 

substance abuse, or academic issues, and can include, but are not limited 

to, delinquency prevention, community service, drug courts, or family 

therapy. To be included in the Model Programs Guide, programs are 

reviewed and rated along several dimensions, including such factors as 

whether an evaluation of the program established a causal association 

between the treatment and the outcome. Users can search the Model 

Programs Guide to find programs that meet their specific needs. For 

 

41According to OJJDP, NTTAC is one of many providers that OJJDP uses for its training and 

technical assistance efforts. Whereas NTTAC provides information on a wide range of 

juvenile justice issues, OJJDP’s other providers deliver specialized training and technical 

assistance on specific topics, such as gang prevention through the National Youth Gang 

Center. 

42The Model Programs Guide is one of several online databases that provide information 

about programs that have been evaluated and may have been shown to be effective. In 

general, these online databases provide information about specific intervention programs 

(e.g., multisystemic therapy) rather than types of programs (e.g., drug courts or mentoring). 

At the time this report was issued, GAO was in the process of issuing another report that 

indicated that these online databases use different criteria for determining whether a 

program is effective. See GAO, Program Evaluation: a Variety of Rigorous Methods Can 

Help Identify Effective Interventions, GAO-10-30 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2009). 

Page 26 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

example, users can look for a program that has been shown to be effective 

for juveniles with substance abuse problems who are first-time offenders, 

or they can search for a program that has been shown to be effective for 

juveniles involved in gang activities who are reentering the community. 

Evaluations and Needs 

Assessment Help OJJDP 

Ensure Usefulness of 

Information Provided by 

Training and Technical 

Assistance Efforts, but 

OJJDP Could Better 

Ensure the Utility of the 

Model Programs Guide’s 

Information through 

Regular Feedback 

In accordance with federal guidelines from OJP and prior GAO work, 

OJJDP has mechanisms in place to regularly conduct evaluations and is 

currently conducting a needs assessment to ensure the usefulness of the 

information provided by its training and technical assistance efforts. 

However, OJJDP could better ensure the utility of the information 

provided by the Model Programs Guide by establishing a mechanism to 

solicit regular feedback from the juvenile justice field. We have previously 

reported on the importance of regularly soliciting feedback to assess user 

needs and satisfaction.43 Specifically, we have reported that without 

feedback, an agency lacks valuable information from its users and is 

hindered in its ability to make improvements to information products that 

are relevant to users. Additionally, OJP has published Information Quality 

Guidelines for its bureaus, including OJJDP, that highlight the importance 

of ensuring the utility of information to be disseminated to the public by 

continuously monitoring information needs, among other things.44

OJJDP has mechanisms in place to regularly assess the usefulness of the 

information disseminated by NTTAC to ensure that it meets the needs of 

the juvenile justice field. Specifically, OJJDP has established an evaluation 

process for NTTAC that is designed to collect the data necessary to 

regularly assess the outcome and impact of the training and technical 

assistance NTTAC provides to improve the quality of the information it 

disseminates. Officials at NTTAC explained that after every training or 

technical assistance event, all participants are given an evaluation form to 

complete. This form is intended to capture feedback from participants 

about the quality of the event, as well as feedback about the referrals and 

resources NTTAC provides. Other evaluation forms are also available on 

NTTAC’s Web site so that users can provide feedback about NTTAC’s 

 

43GAO-07-904 and GAO-06-917. 

44OJP developed the Information Quality Guidelines in accordance with Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, which is found in Office of Management and 

Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67. Fed. Reg. 8,452 (Feb. 22, 

2002). Utility, as defined by OMB, refers to the usefulness of the information to the 

intended users. 

Page 27 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

services, as well as feedback about the utility of the Web site. NTTAC then 

follows up with a sample of these respondents for more in-depth feedback. 

According to NTTAC officials, NTTAC analyzes the data collected from 

these forms and then provides them to OJJDP. These officials stated that 

OJJDP receives this information on at least a quarterly basis, and uses the 

information to make changes to existing curricula and guide future 

curriculum development, among other things. In accordance with OJP 

guidelines and prior GAO work that highlights the importance of assessing 

user needs, these evaluation efforts allow OJJDP to regularly monitor the 

usefulness of the information it disseminates in order to develop or modify 

its information products. 

In addition, OJJDP is conducting a needs assessment to solicit additional 

information about the utility of the information it disseminates through 

NTTAC’s training and technical assistance efforts. NTTAC is administering 

the needs assessment and, according to NTTAC officials, it is designed to 

determine the training and technical assistance that would be most helpful 

to the field. Specifically, the needs assessment is soliciting feedback from 

members of the juvenile justice field about OJJDP’s existing efforts. It is 

also requesting information regarding issues of interest to the field, any 

current training or technical assistance needs, and the specific challenges 

that the juvenile justice field is facing in its work. OJJDP officials stated 

that they intend to use the results of the needs assessment to influence the 

development of training and technical assistance activities and curricula 

and the content of national conferences and workshops. 

OJJDP’s efforts to conduct evaluations and a needs assessment are 

consistent with comments we received from our expert interviews. We 

asked all 26 of the juvenile reentry and substance abuse experts we 

interviewed to comment on OJJDP’s overall efforts to disseminate 

information about effective programs to the juvenile justice field. Thirteen 

experts provided responses, and while they did not comment specifically 

on NTTAC or the Model Programs Guide, they commented on the utility of 

the information OJJDP provides in general about effective programs. Ten 

of 13 experts had negative opinions of how useful the information OJJDP 

disseminates is to members of the juvenile justice field. For example, 1 

expert stated that practitioners often do not have the time to read research 

data disseminated by OJJDP, which prevents them from being able to 

effectively use it in their work. The expert added that it would be more 

useful if OJJDP disseminated information that was practical and could be 

applied in the field. In addition, 2 of these 10 experts suggested that it 

would be helpful for OJJDP to obtain feedback from members of the 

juvenile justice field about what types of information they would find 

Page 28 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

useful. Thus, OJJDP’s needs assessment should help to address this 

concern. The remaining 3 experts who commented on OJJDP’s 

information dissemination efforts had generally positive opinions, stating 

that the information is useful to researchers and practitioners. 

With respect to the Model Programs Guide, although OJJDP has ad hoc 

mechanisms in place to solicit feedback about the information it provides, 

it does not solicit this feedback on a regular basis or use feedback to help 

ensure that the information disseminated by the Model Programs Guide is 

useful to the field, in accordance with federal guidelines. For example, the 

Model Programs Guide’s Program Director gives several presentations 

about the guide each year at juvenile justice conferences. Officials who 

operate the Model Programs Guide stated that following these 

presentations, they request verbal feedback from participants. Officials 

also stated that they regularly receive unsolicited feedback through the email address that is listed on the Model Programs Guide’s Web site, which 

they respond to on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, officials said that 

they collect feedback about the Model Programs Guide through an annual 

e-mail survey that is sent to the program points of contact listed on the 

guide to obtain updated program information. Although these efforts to 

solicit feedback about the Model Programs Guide provide OJJDP with 

some information from its users, according to OJJDP officials, because the 

guide does not have a systematic feedback mechanism, information 

received cannot be analyzed on an aggregate level in order to regularly 

assess how the juvenile justice field views the utility of the information 

provided by the Model Programs Guide. Further, while the annual e-mail 

survey can help OJJDP confirm that the program information featured in 

the Model Programs Guide is accurate, it does not provide information 

about whether the guide is useful to the field as a whole since OJJDP 

sends the survey’s request for comments about the Model Programs Guide 

to a portion of the juvenile justice field whose programs are already 

published in the guide, which means that the comments it receives about 

the Model Programs Guide do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the 

juvenile justice field as a whole. 

OJJDP officials agreed that they had not established a systematic 

mechanism to obtain feedback from the field regarding the usefulness of 

the Model Programs Guide and recognized that such a mechanism would 

be useful to have in place. Officials also stated that NTTAC’s needs 

assessment might be used as a model to build in more consistent 

mechanisms for feedback for the office’s broader efforts. Because NTTAC 

uses evaluations and is taking steps to conduct a needs assessment to 

monitor the information needs of the juvenile justice field, OJJDP is in a 

Page 29 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

better position to help ensure that the information provided by NTTAC is 

useful to the juvenile justice field. Recognizing that, although there is a 

cost associated with gathering and analyzing feedback data, establishing a 

cost-effective mechanism to regularly solicit feedback about the Model 

Programs Guide should provide OJJDP with the information necessary to 

assess whether the information provided by this tool is useful to the 

juvenile justice field. 

OJJDP has articulated research and evaluation goals to support its mission 

of promoting effective programs and improving the juvenile justice system. 

According to OJJDP, one of its three main goals is to promote 

improvements in juvenile justice and facilitate the most effective 

allocation of resources by conducting research to understand how the 

juvenile justice system works in serving children and families.45 Under the 

JJDPA, OJJDP is required to publish an annual program plan that 

describes planned activities that are under accounts authorized for 

research and evaluation activities and that demonstrate promising 

initiatives, among other things.46 This plan is required to be published 

annually in the Federal Register for public comment, and is to describe the 

activities the Administrator intends to carry out under parts D and E, the 

appropriations accounts that in general are available for research and the 

development of new programs and initiatives, respectively.47 Specifically, 

according to the JJDPA, the Administrator must take into account the 

public comments received during the 45-day period and develop and 

Finalizing a Program 

Plan and Developing a 

Comprehensive 

Evaluation Plan 

Would Help OJJDP 

Achieve Its Research 

and Evaluation Goals 

and Use Its Limited 

Resources Effectively 

 

45OJJDP has established three goals that it states constitute the major elements of a sound 

policy for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. In addition to its goal for research 

and evaluation, OJJDP’s remaining two goals are (1) to promote delinquency prevention 

and early intervention efforts and (2) to foster the use of community-based programs and 

services for juvenile offenders. 

4642 U.S.C. § 5614(b)(5). 

47Under part D, OJJDP is authorized to conduct research, evaluation, and technical 

assistance, among other things. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5661-62. Under part E, OJJDP is authorized to 

make grants for developing, testing, and demonstrating promising new initiatives and 

programs. 42 U.S.C. §§5665-66. OJJDP has awarded funds under part E pursuant to 

congressional direction for a number of years. For example, the explanatory statement 

accompanying the fiscal year 2008 appropriations act directed that funds appropriated for 

part E programs be provided to specific grantees. Explanatory statement accompanying 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007). For 

fiscal year 2009, the appropriations act directed that funds appropriated under part E be 

provided to specific grantees, as specified in the explanatory statement. Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524, 581. 

Page 30 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

publish a final plan before December 31 of each fiscal year, describing the 

particular activities that the Administrator intends to carry out under parts 

D and E. While OJJDP has not published an annual program plan since 

2002, it issued a proposed plan in the Federal Register to solicit public 

comment in December 2009.48 OJJDP aims to publish the final version once 

public comments are incorporated, in accordance with the JJDPA’s 

requirements.49 Although the annual program plan is required to describe 

the particular activities the Administrator intends to carry out under parts 

D and E of the JJDPA, the proposed program plan includes the office’s 

priorities with respect to all discretionary funding, including its research 

and evaluation efforts. According to the Acting Administrator, this will, in 

part, provide complete transparency for all such funding. According to 

OJJDP, the development and publication of the annual program plan is a 

first step that will lead to a comprehensive evaluation plan as the annual 

program plan outlines the agency’s overall research and evaluation goals. 

Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) fiscal year 

2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool found that juvenile justice 

programs would benefit from evaluations of their effectiveness but noted 

that such evaluations are difficult and expensive to do.50 As a result, OMB 

recommended that OJP develop a comprehensive evaluation plan for 

juvenile justice programs to obtain better information about the programs’ 

impacts.51 Although OMB’s recommendation was directed at OJP, OJP and 

OJJDP officials stated that because OJJDP is the office within OJP 

required to conduct juvenile justice evaluations, it is that office’s 

responsibility to develop this evaluation plan. 

In addition to the above requirement and recommendation, federal 

guidelines stipulate the importance of developing a plan to achieve agency 

 

4874 Fed. Reg. 62,821 (Dec. 1, 2009). OJJDP officials did not provide a reason why the office 

has not published annual program plans for fiscal years 2003 through 2009. 

49See 42 U.S.C. § 5614(b)(5). 

50The Program Assessment Rating Tools aimed to assess and improve program 

performance so that the federal government could achieve better results. Office of 

Management and Budget, “Juvenile Justice Programs,” 2006 Performance and 

Accountability Report (2006), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/ 

10003813.2006.html (accessed May 19, 2008).

51The other two recommendations included in OMB’s review were to (1) make juvenile 

justice programs’ performance results available to the public through program publications 

and the Internet, and (2) include performance information in budget submissions to better 

link resources requested to program performance goals. 

Page 31 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

goals. As established in the standard practices for program management, 

specific goals of an agency must be conceptualized and defined in a plan.52

Specifically, this plan is to contain a description or road map of how the 

goals and objectives are to be achieved, including identifying the needed 

resources and target milestones or time frames for achieving desired 

results. We have also reported on the importance of planning research and 

evaluation efforts, in part to ensure that goals are met and resources are 

used effectively.53

OJJDP’s Research Coordinator stated that such a road map or plan for 

conducting research and evaluation would help better target the agency’s 

research and evaluation efforts toward achieving their goals. However, 

from 2006 to 2009, OJJDP had not developed such a plan, primarily 

because of resource constraints. According to this official, in lieu of having 

a comprehensive evaluation plan in place to guide its research and 

evaluation efforts, the office’s efforts are influenced by a number of 

factors, including whether Congress directs the agency to conduct 

research in a particular area or whether ideas are generated internally by 

staff or externally by members of the juvenile justice field. For example, 

OJJDP staff responsible for the mentoring area may generate ideas about 

how available research funds could be used, for example, by evaluating a 

particular type of mentoring program. In addition, the office may receive 

recommendations from the Federal Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice 

or feedback from others in the juvenile justice field. While these factors 

have influenced OJJDP’s research and evaluation efforts, they have not 

provided a framework for helping the office meet its research and 

evaluation goals. Therefore, once the program plan is finalized, OJJDP 

intends to develop a comprehensive evaluation plan in accordance with 

OMB recommendations to provide direction and priorities for its research 

and evaluation efforts. According to the Acting Administrator, OJJDP 

intends to use this comprehensive evaluation plan to better align and 

target available discretionary funds toward achieving its research and 

evaluation goals. 

In addition to having a road map to help ensure it meets its goals, it is 

important for OJJDP to have a comprehensive plan that lays out how the 

office will evaluate its juvenile justice programs. Such a plan would help to 

ensure that its limited resources are being used effectively. This is 

 

52Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management © (2006). 

53GAO-03-999T, GAO-01-361, and GAO/T-RCED-99-170. 

Page 32 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

important because OJJDP does not currently receive dedicated funding for 

research and instead must make trade-off decisions to balance funding to 

implement programs with funding to evaluate which programs are 

effective. The office has not received dedicated research funding since 

fiscal year 2005 when it received $10 million for its part D appropriations 

account—the appropriations account specifically available for research 

and evaluation efforts.54 Without part D funding, OJJDP has relied on funds 

it has set aside from its other appropriation accounts to fund its research 

and evaluation activities.55 Specifically, as shown in table 4, OJJDP is 

authorized by the appropriations act to set aside up to 10 percent of 

certain appropriations accounts for its research and evaluation efforts. In 

fiscal year 2008, the last year for which set-aside funding data are 

available, the appropriations act authorized OJJDP to set aside over 

$23 million for research and evaluation. However, according to OJJDP, the 

office set aside approximately $11 million. OJJDP officials stated that this 

was, in part, because the JJDPA requires and the agency wants to ensure 

that sufficient funds are available to the states for grant programs.56 In 

addition, officials explained that some of OJJDP’s accounts are transferred 

to other program offices, such as the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, so research funds are not deducted from those 

accounts.57 Of the over $11 million that OJJDP did set aside, officials 

reported that the office used nearly $8 million (or 70 percent) for research 

and evaluation. Table 4 shows the amounts authorized to be set aside by 

 

54OJP’s Performance Budget shows that OJP has not requested part D funding for OJJDP 

since fiscal year 2007. 

55Appropriations statutes for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 provided that OJJDP may use 

not more than 10 percent of each amount appropriated for research, evaluation, and 

statistics activities that benefit the programs or activities authorized, and not more than 2 

percent of each appropriated amount for training and technical assistance. See, e.g., 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1911-12 (2007). 

This provision applied to appropriation accounts under juvenile justice programs, but did 

not apply to amounts appropriated for grants and projects authorized by sections 261 and 

262, part E, of the JJDPA—which is the account available for developing, testing, and 

demonstrating promising new initiatives and projects. See, e.g., id. 

56Under the formula grants program, funds are to be allocated among the states on the 

basis of relative population of people under age 18; however, the JJDPA also sets base 

amounts for awards to the states, depending on the aggregate amount appropriated for the 

program each year and taking into account amounts allocated to the states for fiscal year 

2000. 42 U.S.C. § 5632. 

57The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services is a component of DOJ responsible 

for helping state and local law enforcement agencies prevent crime. 

Page 33 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

the annual appropriations act, as well as the amounts actually set aside 

and used by OJJDP. 

Table 4: OJJDP Funds Authorized and Used for Research and Evaluation, Fiscal Year 2008 

OJJDP appropriations account Issue area funded by the accounta

Maximum funds 

authorized by the 

appropriations act for 

research and evaluation 

10 percent of amount 

appropriated)b

Funds set 

aside by 

OJJDP

Funds used 

by OJJDP

Part A – Concentration of Federal 

Effortsc

Cooperation and coordination 

between federal agencies involved in 

juvenile justice issues 

65,800 0 0

Part B – State Formula GrantsdGrants to state and local 

governments for juvenile 

delinquency programs 

7,426,000 5,940,800 3,170,011

Part D – Research, Evaluation, 

Technical Assistance and 

Traininge

Research and evaluation 0 0 0

Part E – Developing, Testing, and 

Demonstrating Promising New 

Initiatives and Projectsf

Development and demonstration of 

new projects and initiatives 

N/A N/A N/A

Youth Mentoring Grants Mentoring programs 7,000,000 907,620 907,479

Title V – Local Delinquency 

Prevention Incentive Grantsg

Tribal programs, gang prevention, 

alcohol prevention, other local 

delinquency programs 

320,000 320,000 124,623

Secure Our SchoolshImproved security at schools 1,504,000 0 0

Victims of Crime Act – Improving 

the Investigation and Prosecution 

of Child Abuse Programs 

Training and technical assistance for 

professionals involved in 

investigating, prosecuting, and 

treating issues related to child abuse 

1,692,000 0 0

Juvenile Accountability Block 

Grant 

Juveniles already involved in the 

juvenile justice system 

5,170,000 4,136,000 3,626,917

Project ChildsafeiSafe firearm handling and storage 

practices 

0 0 0

Total $23,177,800 $11,304,420 $7,829,030 

Sources: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1911-12 (2007); the JJDPA; and GAO analysis 

of OJJDP data. 

a

The appropriation act allows OJJDP to set aside funds for research, evaluation, and statistics 

activities designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1911-12 (2007). As such, the accounts from which 

OJJDP sets aside funds for research and evaluation are tied to specific issue areas, and therefore all 

of the set-asides must be used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities designed to benefit 

these specific issue areas. For example, the mentoring appropriation account can only be used for 

research and evaluation activities related to mentoring programs. 

Page 34 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

b

The appropriations statute for fiscal year 2008 provides that not more than 10 percent of each 

amount appropriated may be used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities that benefit the 

programs or activities authorized, and not more than 2 percent for training and technical assistance. 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1911-12 (2007). These 

provisions applied to appropriation accounts for juvenile justice programs, but did not apply to 

amounts appropriated for grants and projects authorized by sections 261 and 262, part E, of the 

JJDPA—which is the account available for developing, testing, and demonstrating promising new 

initiatives and projects. See id. 

c

According to OJJDP officials, historically, OJJDP has elected not to set aside funds from part A as 

the appropriation supports the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention—a council created, in part, to coordinate all federal juvenile offender programs in 

cooperation with state and local juvenile justice programs. 

d

Under the formula grants program, funds are to be allocated among the states on the basis of 

relative population of people under age 18; however, the JJDPA also sets base amounts for awards 

to the states, depending on the aggregate amount appropriated for the program each year and taking 

into account amounts allocated to the states for fiscal year 2000. 42 U.S.C. § 5632. 

e

Funds for part D have not been appropriated since fiscal year 2005. 

f

The provision in the appropriations act allowing the office to set aside up to 10 percent of each 

amount appropriated is not applicable to grants and projects authorized by sections 261 and 262, part 

E, of the JJDPA and is authorized for developing, testing, and demonstrating promising new initiatives 

and projects. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1911-12 

(2007). 

g

As described in app. III, the appropriation account for Title V programs includes funds that are carved 

out for specific purposes. Pursuant to the appropriations act, these amounts are not available for setasides, as they are under sections 261 and 262, part E, of the JJDPA, whereas funds may be set 

aside from the remaining amounts available for Title V delinquency prevention programs. 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1911-12 (2007). 

h

According to OJJDP officials, the office does not set aside funds from this account because the 

entire appropriation is transferred to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services—a 

component of DOJ responsible for helping state and local law enforcement agencies prevent crime. 

i

In fiscal year 2008, Project Childsafe was not appropriated funds as part of the appropriations for 

juvenile justice programs. 

Additionally, all of the set-asides from these four accounts must be used 

for research, evaluation, and statistics activities designed to benefit the 

juvenile justice issues that the accounts specify. For example, set-aside 

funds from the youth mentoring grant appropriation account must be used 

to research or evaluate mentoring programs. For other accounts, OJJDP 

can elect to fund research and evaluation efforts in a number of different 

areas. For example, under Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, OJJDP 

provides funds to states and units of local government to strengthen the 

juvenile justice system. The states can use these funds for 17 different 

purpose areas, including establishing programs to help the successful 

reentry of juvenile offenders from state and local custody in the 

community or for hiring staff or developing training programs for 

detention and corrections. Consequently, there are limits on the amount of 

funds OJJDP can divert to research and evaluation and on its discretion 

over how to use of some of these funds. In fiscal year 2008, the 

appropriation act allowed OJJDP to set aside more than $23 million that 

could be dedicated to research and evaluation efforts on numerous eligible 

Page 35 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

programs. Because OJJDP has to decide how to split set aside funds 

between supporting state and local program implementation and program 

evaluation, in accordance with federal guidelines, a comprehensive 

evaluation plan that in part identifies its funding resources could help 

OJJDP make this determination. 

According to OJJDP, the office has spent several years considering 

developing a plan to provide a road map for how it would meet its 

research and evaluation goals. However, officials stated that it has been 

difficult to complete a comprehensive evaluation plan to fulfill OMB’s 

Program Assessment Rating Tool recommendation because they have not 

had the resources available—that is, funding and staffing—to develop the 

plan. Specifically, because funds have not been appropriated for part D 

since fiscal year 2005, OJJDP has not had a dedicated source of funding 

that could be used to develop a comprehensive evaluation plan or to fund 

the research identified by such a plan. Additionally, in 2003, OJJDP 

reorganized its divisions and, as part of this, dissolved its research 

division, as well as the training and information dissemination units. 

According to OJJDP, the intention of the former Administrator who 

implemented this reorganization was to better integrate these functions 

throughout the agency. OJJDP officials stated that those staff who were 

dedicated to research and evaluation work were reassigned to other 

divisions. Although some of these staff retained the research projects they 

had at the time, they also assumed new grant management duties. Also, 

over the past 8 fiscal years, OJJDP’s overall authorized staffing level has 

decreased from 95 to 76. Specifically, those staff dedicated to research and 

evaluation decreased from 10 in fiscal year 2002 to 3.5 in fiscal year 2009. 

According to OJJDP officials, the reduction in staff who were dedicated to 

research and evaluation has strained the staffing resources that could be 

used for developing a comprehensive evaluation plan. 

Although OJJDP cited funding and staffing constraints, the Acting 

Administrator has made developing a comprehensive evaluation plan a 

priority and the office is committed to moving forward with developing 

this plan. Following through with its planning efforts will help OJJDP to 

meet its research and evaluation goals and better ensure that its resources 

are being used effectively as stipulated by federal guidelines. 

As the juvenile justice field—including states and local communities—

works to implement programs to lower juvenile recidivism rates and 

address juvenile substance abuse, it is important that the field has 

information about which programs have been shown to be effective 

Conclusions 

Page 36 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

through program evaluations. The importance of OJJDP’s goal to research 

and evaluate programs to improve juvenile delinquency underscores the 

need for a comprehensive plan to evaluate juvenile justice programs, one 

that identifies resources to be committed to its research and evaluation 

efforts and outlines the details of how OJJDP will accomplish its research 

and evaluation goals. OJJDP efforts to publish a fiscal year 2010 program 

plan in December are positive steps in developing the comprehensive 

evaluation plan that officials have said they are committed to developing. 

Having such a plan will provide OJJDP with a road map to help ensure that 

it meets its research and evaluation goals, uses its limited resources 

effectively, and contributes to identifying effective programs to help 

support states and localities. With respect to OJJDP’s efforts to 

disseminate information about effective programs, NTTAC’s efforts to 

regularly assess the needs for the information it is disseminating through 

training and technical assistance are important to helping OJJDP assess 

the utility of its efforts and make appropriate improvements. We also 

recognize that OJJDP’s efforts to conduct a needs assessment could help 

provide important information to NTTAC that can be used in conjunction 

with its evaluation efforts. Consistent with federal guidelines from OJP 

and prior GAO reports, assessing the utility of the information 

disseminated through OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide is also critical to 

ensuring that such information meets the needs of the juvenile justice field 

so the field can better implement effective programs. Having a mechanism 

in place to regularly solicit feedback from the field about the usefulness of 

the Model Programs Guide would better position OJJDP to assess whether 

the information it is disseminating through the guide on effective programs 

regularly meets the needs of its users. 

To help ensure that OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide is regularly meeting 

user needs and providing the most helpful information on effective 

programs, consistent with federal guidelines, we recommend the 

Administrator of OJJDP develop a cost-effective mechanism for regularly 

soliciting and incorporating feedback from the juvenile justice field on the 

usefulness of the information provided in its Model Programs Guide. 

We provided a copy of this report to the Attorney General for review and 

comment. On December 3, 2009, OJP provided written comments, which 

are reprinted in appendix VIII. OJP stated that it agreed with our 

recommendation and intends to develop a mechanism for regularly 

soliciting and incorporating feedback from the juvenile justice field on the 

usefulness of the information provided in its Model Programs Guide by 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 37 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
 

March 31, 2010. OJP also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. The report also is 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact Eileen Larence at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix IX. 

Sincerely yours, 

Eileen R. Larence

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Page 38 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix I: Juvenile Justice Reentry and Appendix I: Juvenile Justice Reentry and Substance Abuse Experts We Interviewed 

Substance Abuse Experts We Interviewed 

For the purposes of our review, we selected a total of 26 experts to 

interview—13 of whom had expertise related to juvenile reentry programs, 

7 of whom had expertise related to juvenile substance abuse programs, 

and 6 of whom had both juvenile reentry and substance abuse program 

expertise. See table 5 for a list of these experts. 

Table 5: Juvenile Justice Experts We Interviewed about Juvenile Reentry or 

Substance Abuse Programs 

Experts on reentry programs 

David Altschuler, John Hopkins University 

Troy Armstrong, California State University 

Richard Dembo, University of South Florida 

Lynn Ellsworth, Creative Strategy Group and Columbia University 

Jim Heafner, McLaughlin Youth Center 

Peter Jones, Temple University 

Barry Krisberg, National Council on Crime and Delinquency 

Kevin Minor, Eastern Kentucky University 

Shelli Rossman, Urban Institute 

Richard Steele, Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, State of Pennsylvania 

Mercer Sullivan, Rutgers University 

Christy Visher, University of Delaware 

Richard Wiebush, National Council on Crime and Delinquency 

Experts on substance abuse programs 

Paul Boxer, Rutgers University 

Laurie Chassin, Arizona State University 

Michael Dennis, Chestnut Health Systems 

Scott W. Henggeler, Medical University of South Carolina 

Randolph Muck, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrationa

Lawrence Murray, Columbia University 

John Roman, The Urban Institute 

Experts on both reentry programs and substance abuse programs 

Steve Aos, Washington State Institute for Public Policy 

Peter Greenwood, Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice 

Nancy Jainchill, National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. 

Bruce Kamradt, Milwaukee County 

Doug Kopp, Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration 

Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt University 

Source: GAO. 

Page 39 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix I: Juvenile Justice Reentry and 

Substance Abuse Experts We Interviewed 

a

During our interview with Randolph Muck, other researchers were present, including H. Westley 

Clark, Director, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 

Page 40 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
A

on Fa

Intended O

ppendix II: Juvenile Justice Experts’ Views

ctors That Can Help Programs Achieve 

utcomes 

Page 41 GAO-10-125 

Appendix II: Juvenile Justice Experts’ Views 

on Factors That Can Help Programs Achieve 

Intended Outcomes 

Of the 26 reentry and substance abuse experts we interviewed, 22 

experts—as well as research we reviewed—identified several factors that 

can help programs achieve intended outcomes, that is, be effective.1

 The 

following factors, while not an exhaustive list of items for programs to 

consider when implementing juvenile justice intervention programs, were 

the most frequently cited by the experts we interviewed: 

• maintaining fidelity to the program; 

• selecting, training, and retaining qualified providers; 

• conducting needs-based assessments to provide individualized treatment; 

and 

• improving juvenile program participation by engaging and motivating 

juvenile and family involvement. 

While incorporating these factors into reentry or substance abuse 

programs does not guarantee that any particular intervention program will 

be successful, existing programs that have been evaluated and found to be 

effective have generally included these factors in their designs or 

implementation. 

Maintaining Fidelity to the 

Program 

According to 17 of the 22 experts, maintaining fidelity to the program as it 

was intended to be implemented can help programs achieve their intended 

objectives. This factor focuses on ensuring that core program services or 

intervention components are delivered as they were designed, that is, with 

fidelity. For example, for cognitive behavioral therapy, this would entail 

that core intervention components, such as cognitive and social skills 

training, were provided exactly as they were designed to each participant.2

According to one expert’s research, the degree to which an intervention 

program is delivered with fidelity is closely related to its effects on 

recidivism. Another expert concurred, stating that the more closely core 

program services or intervention components are implemented as they 

were designed, the more the intervention program will reduce recidivism 

rates. For example, one expert emphasized the importance of maintaining 

fidelity to the program when replicating the model within a specific 

 

1

Four experts did not provide comments on any factors. 

2

Cognitive skills include training on general thinking and decision-making skills, such as to 

stop and think before acting, generate alternative solutions, evaluate consequences, and 

make decisions about appropriate behavior. Social skills include training in prosocial 

behaviors, interpreting social cues, and taking other persons’ feelings into account, among 

others. 

Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix II: Juvenile Justice Experts’ Views 

on Factors That Can Help Programs Achieve 

Intended Outcomes 

community. In particular, another expert explained that some therapists 

tend to substitute their own preferred treatment techniques instead of 

using those prescribed by the intervention program, which can affect how 

effective a program is at reducing recidivism. This is particularly true if the 

intervention program being delivered is a program that has been evaluated 

and found to be effective. Furthermore, one of these experts stated that 

the specific model chosen has less of an effect on intended outcomes than 

the manner in which it is delivered. As another expert explained it, a 

weaker intervention—one that has not been evaluated and proven to be 

effective—may result in decreased recidivism rates, for example, if it is 

implemented as designed, while an effective intervention program that is 

implemented poorly may have little or no effect on intended outcomes. 

Selecting, Training, and 

Retaining Qualified 

Providers 

According to 19 of the 22 experts, selecting, training, and retaining 

qualified providers can help intervention programs achieve intended 

outcomes. For example, the quality of the services that cognitive 

behavioral therapy delivers depends, in part, on the provider’s ability and 

whether the provider has been trained on the specific therapies and 

components of the intervention program. Three of these experts noted 

that if providers are not appropriately trained in the therapy or 

intervention being implemented, they may not provide the program as it 

was intended, or as one of them noted, may substitute their own preferred 

treatment techniques for those prescribed by the intervention program. As 

a result, the providers’ failure to deliver the intervention program as it was 

designed reduces the ability of the program to achieve intended outcomes. 

Furthermore, many intervention programs utilize providers who have 

certain educational or clinical experience, such as having a background in 

mental health or being a licensed practitioner for the specific therapy 

being implemented. One of the 19 experts we interviewed also mentioned 

the importance of gaining the support of the juvenile justice community, 

as well as agencies’ program management, in the selection and training of 

providers. 

Conducting Needs-Based 

Assessments to Provide 

Individualized Treatment 

According to 18 of the 22 experts, by assessing a juvenile’s specific 

treatment needs, program providers can better design intervention 

programs that will be targeted to a juvenile’s individual situation. For 

example, 4 experts noted that this can help intervention programs achieve 

intended outcomes because individualized treatment is more likely to 

affect participants’ individual outcomes since it takes into account 

differences such as age, gender, culture, environment, and problem 

severity. One expert noted that individualized treatment ensures that 

Page 42 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix II: Juvenile Justice Experts’ Views 

on Factors That Can Help Programs Achieve 

Intended Outcomes 

juveniles do not receive unnecessary treatment, which in some instances 

may produce harmful results. According to this expert, providing juveniles 

who do not have substance abuse problems some programs, such as 

cognitive behavioral therapy, may lead to harmful results because these 

juveniles are exposed to others who have more serious addictions. Four 

experts also noted that using needs-based assessments to develop 

individualized treatment plans can be more cost beneficial than using 

standard treatment plans. Specifically, as one of these experts noted, this 

is because individualized treatment plans can help ensure that costly 

interventions are not provided to juveniles who do not need extensive 

services. In addition, 5 experts stated that conducting a risk-based 

assessment is important to determining which juveniles are at higher risk 

of reoffending in order to focus programming efforts on them.3

 One of 

these experts cited a study that shows that targeting specific treatment 

needs of offenders is correlated with recidivism outcomes, that is, 

providing targeted treatment needs is generally related to lower 

recidivism.4

Improving Juvenile 

Participation by Engaging 

and Motivating Juvenile 

and Family Involvement 

According to 16 of the 22 experts, engaging and motivating juvenile and 

family involvement can help to improve a juvenile’s program participation, 

thereby helping intervention programs to achieve intended outcomes. For 

example, 1 expert noted that successful programs rely on staff members to 

gain the trust of juvenile offenders. These programs also recognize that 

juveniles may experience program fatigue because they are participating 

in numerous programs and that motivation may become an issue. In 

addition, this expert noted that after being released into the community, 

juveniles and their families may not be motivated to participate in 

intervention programs. Additionally, research has shown that encouraging 

families to participate in the juvenile’s treatment program can reduce 

family risk factors for delinquency.5

 Eleven experts also mentioned that 

motivating juvenile offenders and their families to participate can assist 

juveniles in successfully completing an intervention program. Two of 

 

3

Risk factors for reoffending can include antisocial attitudes and peer associations, selfcontrol and self-management skills, and drug dependencies. 

4

Four additional experts commented on assessing an individual juvenile’s treatment needs, 

but did not expand on its significance. 

5

For example, family risk factors for delinquency can include patterns of high family 

conflict, having a parent who has been involved in the criminal justice system, and sibling 

delinquent behavior. 

Page 43 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix II: Juvenile Justice Experts’ Views 

on Factors That Can Help Programs Achieve 

Intended Outcomes 

these experts noted that by involving family members in treatment, some 

issues that may contribute to juvenile dropout rates, such as a history of 

traumatic stress and family members who also abuse substances, can be 

addressed within an intervention program.6

 

6

Five additional experts commented on engaging and motivating juvenile and family 

involvement, but did not expand on its significance. 

Page 44 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix III: OJJDP’s Enacted 

Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2007 through Appendix III: OJJDP’s Enacted 2009 

Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2007 through 

2009 

To prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and help states improve 

their juvenile justice systems, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers a wide variety of grants to 

states, territories, localities, and public and private organizations through 

formula, block, and discretionary grant programs.1

 The office also provides 

training and technical assistance, produces and distributes publications 

and other products containing information about juvenile justice topics, 

and funds research and evaluation efforts. Table 6 shows funding by fiscal 

year from 2007 through 2009 for the appropriation accounts for juvenile 

justice programs. 

Table 6: Juvenile Justice Enacted Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Dollars in thousands 

Funding by fiscal year 

Line item 2007 2008 2009a

Part A – Concentration of Federal Effortsb703 658 0

Part B – State Formula Grants 78,978 74,260 75,000

Part D—Research, Evaluation, Technical 

Assistance, and Training 0 0 0

Part E – Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating 

Promising New Initiatives and Projects 104,674 93,835 82,000

Youth Mentoring Grants 9,872 70,000 80,000

Title V – Local Delinquency Prevention Incentive 

Grantsc

Tribal Youth 

Gang Prevention 

Alcohol Prevention 

 64,171 

(9,872) 

(24,680) 

(24,680) 

 61,100

(14,100)

(18,800)

(25,000)

 62,000

(25,000)

(10,000)

(25,000)

Project Childsafed 987 0 0

Secure Our Schoolse 14,808 15,040 0

Victims of Crime Act—Improving Investigation and 

Prosecution of Child Abuse Programf

14,808 16,920 20,000

 

1

OJJDP formula and block grant awards provide funds to states in accordance with 

statutory requirements. OJJDP allocates some formula and block grants to states on the 

basis of states’ juvenile populations, while others may be awarded at a fixed level to all 

states. OJJDP discretionary grants provide funds to states, units of local government, and 

organizations to administer programs. OJJDP awards discretionary grants to recipients 

through an application process or based on congressional direction. The term “state” 

means any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 42 U.S.C. § 5603. 

Page 45 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix III: OJJDP’s Enacted 

Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2007 through 

2009 

Dollars in thousands 

Funding by fiscal year 

Line item 2007 2008 2009a

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Programg49,361 51,700 55,000

Total $338,362 $383,513 $374,000 

Source: OJJDP funding data. 

Note: According to OJJDP, the office’s overall budget also includes funds that are transferred from 

other appropriations accounts; for example, Juvenile Drug Court programs are administered by 

OJJDP, but the funding for these programs is provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance—a 

component of the Department of Justice that in part provides funding, training, and technical 

assistance in support of national, state, and local efforts to prevent crime, drug abuse, and violence. 

a

Not included in this table is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-

5, 123 Stat. 115, 130, which provided an additional $225 million under the State and Local Law 

Enforcement Assistance account that the conference report directed be used over 2 years for 

competitive, peer-reviewed grants to units of state, local, and tribal governments and to national, 

regional, and local nonprofit organizations to support critical nurturing and mentoring of juveniles, 

among other things. H.R. Rep. No. 111-16, at 419. 

b

According to the Office of Justice Program’s fiscal year 2010 congressional budget submission, the 

Concentration of Federal Efforts program promotes interagency cooperation and coordination among 

federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice, as authorized by part A of the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended. 

c

These three amounts are carved out from the Title V appropriations account in accordance with the 

annual appropriations acts. The remaining funds are used for Title V delinquency prevention 

programs for juveniles who have had contact with the juvenile justice system, as well as 

nonoffenders—juveniles who have not yet had contact with the juvenile justice system but are in need 

of preventive services. 

d

Project Childsafe is a nationwide program to promote safe firearms handling and storage practices 

through the distribution of safety education messages and free gun-locking devices. 

e

The Secure Our Schools program provides discretionary grants to states, local governments, and 

Indian tribes to provide improved security, such as placement and use of metal detectors, at schools 

and on school grounds. 

f

The Victims of Crime Act—Improving Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse program provides 

training and technical assistance to professionals involved in investigating, prosecuting, and treating 

issues related to child abuse. 

g

Under the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, OJJDP provides funds to states and units of 

local government to strengthen the juvenile justice system. These funds can be used for 17 different 

purpose areas, including establishing programs to help the successful reentry of juvenile offenders 

from state and local custody in the community or for hiring or training programs for detention and 

corrections personnel. 

Page 46 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix IV: Juvenile Reentry and Substance 

Abuse Programs OJJDP Funded through 

Discretionary Grants 

From fiscal years 2007 through 2009, OJJDP allocated approximately 

$33 million through discretionary grants to four juvenile reentry grant 

programs and three juvenile substance abuse programs. See table 7 for a 

description of these reentry and substance abuse programs and the 

amounts OJJDP awarded to grantees. 

Table 7: OJJDP Juvenile Reentry and Substance Abuse Programs Funded through Discretionary Grants, Fiscal Years 2007 

through 2009 

Grant program Description 

Reentry programs 

High-Risk Youth Offender Reentry 

and Family Strengthening Initiatives 

The purpose of this program is to facilitate the successful transition of juvenile offenders to 

their families and communities following confinement in a juvenile residential facility. In 2007, 

OJJDP awarded a total of $15 million to 19 grantees to develop programs and strategies 

aimed at helping juvenile offenders who pose significant public safety risks stay out of the 

juvenile justice system, for example, by improving their family relationships. 

Second Chance Juvenile Mentoring 

Initiative 

The purpose of this program is to support the successful and safe transition of juvenile 

offenders from residential facilities to their communities. In 2009, OJJDP awarded a total of 

$4.7 million to 11 grantees to develop, implement, and expand mentoring programs and 

transitional services that specifically match juveniles with mentors during the juveniles’ 

confinement to facilitate successful community reintegration and reduce recidivism. 

Second Chance Act Youth Offender 

Reentry Initiative 

The purpose of this program is to assist jurisdictions characterized by large numbers of 

juvenile offenders returning to their communities after release from residential facilities and 

reduce the rate of recidivism for these juvenile offenders. In 2009, OJJDP awarded a total of 

nearly $3.7 million to five grantees to develop projects aimed at providing juvenile offenders 

with services, including vocational and job placement services, substance abuse treatment, 

family strengthening practices, and mentors who work with juvenile offenders during 

confinement and after reentry into the community. 

Tribal Juvenile Detention and 

Reentry Green Demonstration 

Program 

The purpose of this program is to provide federally recognized tribes with the funds to support 

program services for tribal juveniles residing in, or soon to be released from, tribal juvenile 

detention centers. In 2009, OJJDP awarded a total of $2 million to three grantees to develop 

programs that provide services, such as needs assessments, vocational training, substance 

abuse treatment, family strengthening, and aftercare to help successfully reintegrate the 

juveniles into the tribal community. 

Substance abuse programs 

Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming 

Futures Programa

The purpose of this program is to build the capacity of states, state courts, local courts, units of 

local government, and Indian tribal governments to develop and establish juvenile drug courts 

adopting the Reclaiming Futures model. This model embodies three essential elements for 

juvenile offenders who are abusing substances: (1) designing a system to coordinate services, 

(2) involving the community in creating new opportunities, and (3) improving treatment services 

for drug and alcohol abuse. In 2007, OJJDP awarded nearly $1.3 million to three grantees for 

programs that applied the Reclaiming Futures model to their juvenile drug courts by helping 

youth meet educational goals, identifying juveniles requiring substance abuse treatment, and 

effectively engaging youth in treatment by increasing the number and range of available 

options. 

Appendix IV: Juvenile Reentry and Substance 

Abuse Programs OJJDP Funded through 

Discretionary Grants 

Page 47 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix IV: Juvenile Reentry and Substance 

Abuse Programs OJJDP Funded through 

Discretionary Grants 

Grant program Description 

Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Intervention Programs 

The purpose of these programs is to enhance juvenile justice, child protection, and 

delinquency prevention by funding substance abuse programs or strategies that focus on 

change at the individual, family, and community levels. In 2007, OJJDP awarded $4.7 million to 

nine grantees for programs that aim to prevent or reduce juvenile delinquency associated with 

substance abuse problems by offering a range of services, from community-based 

interventions, such as academic assistance and job skills training, to individual treatment 

services, such as counseling or therapy. These programs incorporate the use of prevention 

and intervention programs that use innovative approaches or that have been evaluated and 

have been shown to be effective, such as wraparound/case management or family therapy, as 

well as those that target both substance-abusing juveniles and their families. 

Brief Interventions and Referrals to 

Treatment for Juvenile Courts and 

Juvenile Drug Courtsa

The purpose of this program is to increase the provision and effectiveness of outpatient 

treatment for adolescents with substance abuse disorders by funding juvenile courts and 

juvenile drug courts to adopt and expand a combination of two interventions for adolescents in 

outpatient treatment settings. These interventions are (1) motivational enhancement therapy, 

an intervention program designed to change behavior by helping clients understand their 

ambivalence and achieve lasting changes for a range of problematic behaviors, and 

(2) cognitive behavioral therapy. In 2008, OJJDP awarded nearly $1.6 million to three grantees 

for juvenile drug court programs that adopt and expand the use of these two therapies. 

Source: GAO analysis of OJJDP grant programs and funding data. 

a

According to OJJDP, funding for the Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures Program and Brief 

Interventions and Referrals to Treatment for Courts and Juvenile Drug Courts is provided by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance but administered by OJJDP. In addition, OJJDP has funded family drug 

court programs and training and technical assistance efforts for drug courts. 

Page 48 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix V: E

Pr

Effectivenes

xperts’ Opinions of Reentry 

ograms That Lack Conclusive Evidence of

s 

Page 49 GAO-10-125 

Appendix V: Experts’ Opinions of Reentry 

Programs That Lack Conclusive Evidence of 

Effectiveness 

Of the 19 reentry experts we interviewed, 9 had specific experience or 

knowledge related to wraparound/case management and 8 experts had 

positive comments about the effectiveness of this program.1

 In general, 

wraparound/case management interventions involve making an array of 

individualized services and support networks available to juveniles, rather 

than requiring them to enroll in treatment programs that may not address 

individual needs. According to OJJDP, the goal of wraparound/case 

management programs is to keep delinquent juveniles at home and out of 

institutions whenever possible. The basic elements that constitute a 

wraparound program include, among other things, (1) a collaborative, 

community-based interagency team responsible for designing, 

implementing, and overseeing the intervention program in a given 

jurisdiction; (2) care coordinators who are responsible for helping 

juveniles create customized treatment programs, among other things; 

(3) juvenile and family teams consisting of family members and 

community members who work together to ensure the juvenile’s needs are 

met at home, at school, and in the community; and (4) a plan of care 

developed and updated by all members of the juvenile and family teams 

that identifies the juvenile’s strengths and weaknesses, targets specific 

goals such as improved performance in school, and outlines how to 

achieve them. 

Experts Provided Positive 

Views about 

Wraparound/Case 

Management Programs, 

but Could Not Cite 

Evidence from Available 

Research Indicating That 

They Are Effective at 

Reducing Recidivism 

Of these nine experts, eight provided positive opinions of the results of 

wraparound/case management intervention programs. For example, an 

expert commented about how in one specific wraparound intervention 

program, a single case manager is assigned to a juvenile and is responsible 

for determining the services the juvenile is to receive based on his or her 

specific needs, instead of enrolling the juvenile into a treatment program 

that may not be as beneficial for the juvenile. Two of these eight experts 

noted that there was a lack of evaluations demonstrating effectiveness of 

these intervention programs but pointed us to a study2

 on a specific 

wraparound/case management intervention program, Wraparound 

Milwaukee, that showed potentially promising results related to a 

 

1

Not all of the reentry experts provided comments on each program type as their comments 

were based on their particular area(s) of expertise. 

2

Kamradt et al., “Wraparound Milwaukee: Program Description and Evaluation,” Outcomes 

for Children and Youth with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and Their Families, 

307. 

Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix V: Experts’ Opinions of Reentry 

Programs That Lack Conclusive Evidence of 

Effectiveness 

reduction in recidivism rates for juvenile offenders.3 However, these 

experts stressed that this study alone did not conclusively demonstrate the 

effectiveness of wraparound/case management programs. The ninth expert 

stated that in her experience, wraparound/case management interventions 

are not effective because, for example, a juvenile is placed into this 

intervention program based on the availability of program staff and 

resources rather than program services being tailored to the individual 

needs of the juvenile. Additionally, three of the nine experts cautioned that 

these intervention programs are difficult to implement because of such 

issues as a lack of quality services or low retention of juveniles and their 

families in the intervention being provided. Specifically, one of these 

experts noted that the quality of wraparound services can vary depending 

on a community’s resources. In addition, another expert emphasized the 

importance of obtaining buy-in from diverse service providers who may be 

used to working on their own, such as within the welfare, foster care, and 

public school systems. 

Reentry Experts Cited 

Lack of Conclusive 

Evidence Based on 

Available Research and 

Mixed Views of the 

Effectiveness of Aftercare 

Programs at Reducing 

Recidivism 

Of 19 reentry experts we interviewed, 15 had specific experience or 

knowledge related to aftercare programs and 6 cited a lack of conclusive 

evidence of effectiveness of the program type. Aftercare intervention 

programs are intended to prepare juvenile offenders to return to the 

community during the reentry process by focusing on the delivery of 

services and supervision that start while juveniles are incarcerated and 

continue after they return to their communities. Specifically, aftercare 

programs collaborate with the community and marshal its resources to 

help ensure that juvenile offenders receive services that address their 

individual needs, such as treatment for a substance abuse problem. These 

intervention programs focus on changing individual behavior thereby 

preventing further delinquency. For example, an aftercare program might 

incorporate the use of techniques from an intervention therapy, such as 

motivational enhancement therapy, to engage juvenile offenders in 

treatment and increase their commitment to change. 

 

3

Wraparound Milwaukee is an intervention program for juveniles with serious emotional, 

behavioral, and mental health needs and for their families. This intervention program 

attempts to meet the mental health, substance abuse, social service, and other supportive 

needs of juveniles in the Milwaukee community by identifying the specific personal, 

community, and professional services each family needs to care for a juvenile with special 

needs. 

Page 50 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix V: Experts’ Opinions of Reentry 

Programs That Lack Conclusive Evidence of 

Effectiveness 

Of these 15 experts, 7 offered positive opinions regarding aftercare 

intervention programs, based on their own experience or knowledge of the 

intervention programs. For example, 1 expert noted that if aftercare 

included intervention programs that were proven to be effective, used 

assessment tools that identified the individual needs of the juvenile, and 

implemented the therapies as they were designed, then the aftercare 

intervention program should be effective at reducing recidivism rates. 

Although these experts could not provide examples of studies that had 

been conducted to show evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention 

programs, all 7 of them agreed based on their own experience or 

knowledge that aftercare interventions are important reentry programs, in 

part, because they link the juvenile with his or her community and provide 

regular contact with a caseworker. Additionally, 3 of these 7 experts stated 

that aftercare could be effective depending on the intervention programs 

used and if they were delivered as intended. For example, they said that if 

aftercare includes intervention programs that have proven to be effective, 

such as cognitive behavioral therapy, and identifies the individual needs of 

the juvenile, the programs can reduce recidivism. However, 6 of the 15 

reentry experts said there was inconclusive evidence to determine 

whether these programs can be effective in achieving results. Three of 

these experts based their opinions on an evaluation of the Intensive 

Aftercare Program that showed inconclusive results about program 

effectiveness. Specifically, the study4

 found no evidence that the program 

had its intended impact of reducing recidivism among juveniles who were 

released back into the community under supervision in the three states 

that piloted the program.5

 However, the evaluation did find that the three 

states that implemented the Intensive Aftercare Program model did 

successfully incorporate most of its core features, which prepared 

juveniles to transition back into the community. For instance, these states 

created new Intensive Aftercare Program–specific treatment programs 

that among other things, prepared juveniles for increased responsibility in 

 

4

Wiebush et al., “Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare 

Program.” 

5

The Intensive Aftercare Program was implemented in three states: Nevada, Colorado, and 

Virginia. In Nevada, evaluators found no significant or substantive differences in recidivism 

between youth involved in the Intensive Aftercare Program and youth assigned to a control 

group receiving traditional services—such as education and individual and group 

counseling—except that youth in the Intensive Aftercare Program group were more likely 

to be charged with violating parole because of increased monitoring. Evaluators could not 

draw conclusions about Colorado and Virginia because of implementation issues, such as 

small samples of available participants in those states. 

Page 51 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix V: Experts’ Opinions of Reentry 

Programs That Lack Conclusive Evidence of 

Effectiveness 

the community, facilitated interaction with the community, and worked 

with the juveniles’ schools and families. The state programs had a large 

percentage of juveniles involved in various treatment services. Despite the 

inconclusive results of the study, one expert credited aftercare programs 

with addressing the issue of juveniles having to deal with different 

probation officers throughout the reentry process because, in general, 

aftercare programs assign one probation officer to a juvenile as a 

consistent point of contact. The evaluation also stated that in order for the 

general aftercare model to be effective, it must not only provide 

supervision and services after a juvenile’s release into the community, but 

also focus on preparing a juvenile for release. The remaining 2 experts 

opined that aftercare intervention programs had not been shown to be 

effective at achieving desired results because, for example, the treatment a 

juvenile receives depends on what services are actually available in the 

community. 

Experts Indicated 

Potential Positive 

Outcomes for Vocational 

or Job Training Programs 

Of the 19 reentry experts we interviewed, 11 had specific experience or 

knowledge related to vocational or job training programs and indicated 

potential positive outcomes for these programs. According to OJJDP, 

providing juveniles with employment opportunities during reentry is a 

common strategy used to try to reduce future criminal behavior. 

Vocational or job training intervention programs are intended to improve 

juveniles’ social and educational functioning by, for example, increasing 

earnings, raising self-esteem, and instilling a positive work ethic. Juveniles 

can participate in vocational/job training intervention programs while they 

are incarcerated and after they return to the community. 

Of the 11 reentry experts, 10 of them had positive comments based on 

their experience or knowledge of the program type. Specifically, they said 

that vocational/job training programs were potentially beneficial, in part, if 

they were applied to older juveniles and if they led to those juveniles 

getting jobs. The remaining expert said that there is little evidence to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of these intervention programs. 

Page 52 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix V: Experts’ Opinions of Reentry 

Programs That Lack Conclusive Evidence of 

Effectiveness 

Reentry courts are specialized courts that manage the return of juvenile 

offenders to the community after they are released from residential 

facilities.6

 The court manages reentry by using its authority to direct 

resources to support the offender’s return to the community and promote 

positive behavior, among other things. For example, a reentry court would 

oversee a juvenile’s release into the community by assigning a judge to 

meet with the juvenile once a month. The judge would actively engage the 

supervising authority, such as a parole officer, in assessing the juvenile’s 

progress. The judge would also oversee sanctions for violations as well as 

rewards, like early release from parole, for successful achievement of 

goals, such as successfully completing a cognitive behavioral therapy 

intervention program. 

Experts Cited No Evidence 

for Effectiveness of 

Reentry Courts 

Of the 19 reentry experts we interviewed, 2 provided comments related to 

reentry courts and had differing opinions on their effectiveness. One had a 

negative impression of the courts, stating that the reentry courts do not 

provide more to a juvenile than a probation officer would. The other 

commented that he considers concepts encompassed in reentry courts, 

such as intensity of supervision, to be a best practice when it comes to 

reentry programs. However, neither was aware of any evaluations of these 

types of courts.7

 

6

Residential facilities are correctional facilities that house juveniles who are awaiting 

adjudication (i.e., a trial in a juvenile court) or have been adjudicated for an offense, or 

juveniles who are removed from their homes because of nondelinquency issues, such as 

being victims of child abuse. 

7

None of the remaining 17 experts we interviewed could cite studies demonstrating the 

effectiveness of reentry courts or had opinions on this program type. 

Page 53 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix VI: E

Abuse Pro

Evide

xperts’ Opinions of Substance

grams That Lack Conclusive 

nce of Effectiveness 

Page 54 GAO-10-125 

Appendix VI: Experts’ Opinions of Substance 

Abuse Programs That Lack Conclusive 

Evidence of Effectiveness 

Of the 13 substance abuse experts we interviewed, 10 had specific 

experience or knowledge related to drug courts that resulted in mixed 

views of the effectiveness of this program type.1

 Juvenile drug courts are 

specialized courts established within and supervised by juvenile courts to 

provide intervention programs, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or 

family therapy, for substance-abusing juveniles and their families. Juvenile 

offenders assigned to drug courts are identified by a juvenile court as 

having problems with alcohol or drugs. The drug court judge maintains 

close oversight of each case through frequent—often weekly—status 

hearings with the individuals involved. The judge both leads and works as 

a member of a team that can comprise representatives from juvenile 

justice, social services, school and vocational training programs, law 

enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. Together, the 

team determines how best to address the substance abuse and related 

problems of the juvenile and his or her family. 

Experts Views Were 

Divided on the 

Effectiveness of Drug 

Courts, with Half 

Indicating That Additional 

Evidence Is Needed to 

Determine Effectiveness 

Specifically, of these 10 experts, 5 experts described drug courts as having 

insufficient evidence to determine program effectiveness. For example, 2 

experts mentioned that while some studies show drug courts reducing 

substance abuse while juveniles were under court supervision, the results 

did not last after juveniles were no longer being supervised by the courts. 

Another expert stated that since drug courts tend to be used for juveniles 

who have their first or second contact with the juvenile justice system, 

they are ineffective at achieving desired results because they expose these 

first-time offenders to peers who have more serious substance abuse 

addictions and therefore might influence them to continue to abuse 

substances. By contrast, the remaining 4 experts stated that drug courts 

can be effective at achieving desired results such as reducing substance 

abuse if, for example, the juvenile is sent to a community where there are 

intervention programs offered that have been evaluated and have been 

shown to be effective, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or family 

therapy intervention programs. One expert cited a study to support the 

 

1

Not all of the substance abuse experts provided comments on each program type as their 

comments were based on their particular area(s) of expertise. 

Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix VI: Experts’ Opinions of Substance 

Abuse Programs That Lack Conclusive 

Evidence of Effectiveness 

opinion that drug courts supplemented with multisystemic therapy2

resulted in a decrease in substance abuse by juvenile offenders.3

Experts Report Mixed 

Views on the Effectiveness 

of Mentoring Programs 

Of the 13 substance abuse experts we interviewed, 8 had specific 

experience or knowledge related to mentoring intervention programs that 

resulted in mixed views of their effectiveness. Mentoring programs consist 

of a relationship between two or more people over a prolonged period of 

time, where an older, more experienced individual provides support and 

guidance to a juvenile. The goal of mentoring is for the juvenile to develop 

positive adult contact, thereby reducing risk factors, such as exposure to 

juveniles who use substances, while increasing positive factors, such as 

encouragement for abstaining from substance use. In the substance abuse 

field, juveniles in need of sobriety are teamed with older sponsors to serve 

as positive role models in helping them become sober. 

Of these eight experts, four stated that mentoring programs are ineffective 

or unsuccessful at achieving desired results, such as reducing substance 

abuse, and that these intervention programs are more effective at 

preventing at-risk juveniles from engaging in delinquent behavior.4

 Also, 

one expert stated that there have been too few evaluations conducted on 

mentoring programs to make a general statement about the relative 

benefits of mentoring. Conversely, three experts stated that mentoring 

programs are effective or can be effective if, for example, mentors are 

trained or if mentoring is combined with another intervention program 

that has been evaluated and has been shown to be effective, such as 

multisystemic therapy. 

 

2

Multisystemic therapy is a type of family therapy that helps parents identify strengths and 

develop natural support systems (e.g., extended family, neighbors, friends, and church 

members). 

3

Sheidow and Henggeler, “Multisystemic Therapy with Substance Using Adolescents: A 

Synthesis of the Research.” 

4

At-risk juveniles are youth who, because of certain characteristics or experiences, are 

statistically more likely than other youths to encounter certain problems, such as legal, 

social, financial, educational, emotional, and health problems. 

Page 55 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix VI: Experts’ Opinions of Substance 

Abuse Programs That Lack Conclusive 

Evidence of Effectiveness 

Of the 13 substance abuse experts we interviewed, 11 had specific 

experience or knowledge related to wraparound/case management 

intervention programs that resulted in mixed views of the program type. 

Of these 11 experts, 7 stated that wraparound/case management is 

effective or can be effective if, for example, it is combined with another 

intervention program that has been evaluated and has shown to be 

effective, such as multisystemic therapy. Although these experts had 

limited evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of wraparound/case 

management, 2 experts cited two studies that show potentially promising 

results related to a reduction in recidivism.5

 For example, one study 

showed that juveniles in wraparound/case management receive a number 

of individualized services, such as mental health treatment for those 

juveniles who struggle with emotional issues. However, this study stressed 

that it is difficult to evaluate wraparound/case management in a controlled 

way since treatment plans are individualized for each juvenile. The other 4 

experts stated that wraparound/case management intervention programs 

are ineffective because, for example, the intervention programs lack 

follow-through as there are no consequences if a juvenile does not show 

up for treatment, or there is not yet sufficient evidence to determine their 

effectiveness. 

Experts Provided Positive 

Views about the Potential 

Results of 

Wraparound/Case 

Management, but Cited 

Limited Evidence of Its 

Effectiveness 

 

5

(1) Stambaugh et al., “Outcomes From Wraparound and Multisystemic Therapy in a Center 

for Mental Health Services System-of-Care Demonstration Site.” (2) Bruce Kamradt, 

Stephen A. Gilbertson, and Nancy Lynn, “Wraparound Milwaukee Program Description and 

Evaluation,” Outcomes for Children and Youth with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 

and Their Families: Programs and Evaluation Best Practices, 2nd ed. (Austin: ProEd, 

2005). 

Page 56 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix VII: Additional OJJDP Efforts to 

Disseminate Information about Effective Appendix VII: Additional OJJDP Efforts to Juvenile Justice Programs 

Disseminate Information about Effective 

Juvenile Justice Programs 

In addition to the National Training and Technical Assistance Center and 

the Model Programs Guide, OJJDP disseminates information about 

effective programs through a variety of other efforts. Specifically, the 

office has developed mechanisms to disseminate information related to 

effective programs in specific issue areas, such as youth gang activity, 

disproportionate minority contact, and girls’ delinquency, as described in 

table 8. 

Table 8: Additional OJJDP Efforts to Disseminate Information on Effective Programs 

Effort Description 

National Youth Gang Center OJJDP established the National Youth Gang Center in 1995 to assist policymakers, 

practitioners, and researchers in their efforts to reduce youth gang involvement and crime by 

contributing information, resources, practical tools, and expertise toward the development and 

implementation of effective gang prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies. For 

example, the center continually identifies and reviews current gang literature and uses an 

automated database to compile gang-related legislation. The center also conducts assessments 

of the scope and characteristics of youth gang activity in the United States; develops and 

disseminates resources for practitioners and communities; and provides training and technical 

assistance in support of community-based prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts. For 

example, the center annually collects and analyzes gang-related data from law enforcement 

agencies across the nation. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 

Reduction Database 

OJJDP established the Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Database in 2006 to 

address the issue of a disproportionate number of minorities coming into contact with the 

juvenile justice system. The database is a searchable database that assists jurisdictions in 

identifying effective programs that may prove useful to address disproportionate minority 

contact. The database provides guidelines for the juvenile justice field to assist practitioners in 

the field in choosing strategies and developing intervention plans. 

Girls Study Group OJJDP established the Girls Study Group in 2004 to further the juvenile justice field’s 

understanding of female juvenile offending and to identify effective strategies for preventing and 

reducing female juvenile involvement in delinquency and violence. The Girls Study Group 

conducted a literature search and reviewed 61 girls’ delinquency programs to identify risk and 

protective factors for girls’ delinquency and to identify effective programs or strategies for 

preventing and reducing girls’ delinquency. In July 2009, we reported on the findings of the Girls 

Study Group and OJJDP’s efforts related to addressing the group’s findings. Among other 

things, we reported that the study group found no effective programs for preventing or reducing 

girls’ delinquency, and we recommended that OJJDP develop and implement a plan for 

responding to the findings of the Study Group.a

Underage Drinking Enforcement 

Training Center 

OJJDP established the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center in 1999 to build 

leadership capacity and increase the effectiveness of states and local communities in their 

efforts to enforce underage drinking laws, prevent underage drinking, and eliminate the 

consequences associated with alcohol use by underage youth. The center works to achieve this 

goal by providing a wide variety of practical training and technical assistance services, such as 

electronic seminars where national experts, researchers, and representatives from OJJDP give 

presentations on a specific areas of interest, for example, school substance abuse policies or 

the effects of alcohol on adolescent brain development. 

Source: GAO analysis of OJJDP information. 

a

GAO, Juvenile Justice: Technical Assistance and Better Defined Evaluation Plans Will Help to 

Improve Girls’ Delinquency Programs, GAO-09-721R (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2009). 

Page 57 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Justice 

Department of Justice 

Page 58 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 

Page 59 GAO-10-125 Juvenile Justice Programs
Appendix IX: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 60 GAO-10-125 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Mary Catherine Hult, Assistant 

Director; David Alexander; Elizabeth Blair; Ben Bolitzer; Carissa Bryant; 

Katherine Davis; Sean DeBlieck; Allyson Goldstein; Rebecca Guerrero; 

Jared Hermalin; Dawn Locke; Lisa Shibata; Janet Temko; and Delia Zee 

made key contributions to this report. 

Juvenile Justice Programs

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(440813) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper