Source: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/4046?keyword=process+evaluation&permit%5B0%5D=AVAILABLE&dataFormat%5B0%5D=SPSS&paging.startRow=1
Timestamp: 2017-07-20 19:00:29
Document Index: 267699104

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'arts 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'arts 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art\n4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'arts 1', 'arts 3']

National Evaluation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 1998-2002
(6 datasets; 39554 KB)	Table of Contents
National Evaluation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 4046) Principal Investigator(s): Parent, Dale, Abt Associates; Barnett, Liz, Abt Associates
Summary: This study examined the operation of the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant program (JAIBG) from fiscal years
1998 through 2000. In order to describe how states implemented the
JAIBG program, this study examined the program's effects on state and
local juvenile justice policies and practices, which included studying
how states awarded the grant funds to localities and for what
purposes, and an assessment of how states changed their policies and
practices during this period. Variables in Part 1 (Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Subgrant Follow-Up
Information Form Data) provide grant information, jurisdiction type,
planning typology of state, amount of funds budgeted for
administrative purposes, and for each of 12 purpose areas, total
amount of funds spent in subgrant, and number of the various entities
involved in juvenile crime prevention. Variables in Part 2 (Fiscal
Year 1998 Supplemental Programmatic Information Form Data) provide
grant information, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, type
of program, primary purpose of funded programs in each of the 12
purpose areas (if the funds supported a new program in that purpose
area), as well as allocation of funds and total funds in each purpose
area. Variables in Parts 3-5 (Perceptions and Attitudes About the
JAIBG Program Survey Data for JAIBG Subgrant Recipients, Perceptions
and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for State Juvenile
Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members, and Perceptions and
Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for Local Juvenile Crime
Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members) provide state, planning typology
of state, and recipient's professional affiliations (by category). The
surveys also included questions to measure the recipient's
satisfaction with the JAIBG program and the funding received. Data
available in this collection were obtained from the following two
sources: (1) data collected by Follow-Up Information Forms (FIFs) for
fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Part 1), and (2) mail survey data
collected by Abt Associates Inc., which included: programmatic and
financial data for a sample of fiscal year 1998 programs (Part 2),
attitudinal and opinion surveys of a sample of subgrant recipients
(Part 3), state Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) members
(Part 4), and a sample of local JCEC members (Part 5).
This study examined the operation of the Juvenile
DS1: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Subgrant Follow-Up Information Form Data
(19.567 MB) Documentation:
DS2: Fiscal Year 1998 Supplemental Programmatic Information Form Data
(11.715 MB) Documentation:
DS3: Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for JAIBG Subgrant Recipients
DS4: Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for State Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members
DS5: Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for Local Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members
Citation Parent, Dale, and Liz Barnett. National Evaluation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 1998-2002. ICPSR04046-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-09-22. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04046.v1
Persistent URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04046.v1
Subject Terms: attitudes, funding, grants, juvenile justice, perceptions, process evaluation, satisfaction
Date of Collection: 2001--2002 (Part 1: April 2001-April 2002)
Unit of Observation: Part 1: subgrant, Part 2: organization, Parts 3-5: individual
Universe: Part 1: State and local subgrants of the JAIBG program
during fiscal years 1998 through 2000. Part 2: State and local
programs funded by subgrants of the JAIBG program during fiscal year
1998. Part 3: State and local subgrant award recipients of the JAIBG
program during fiscal year 1998. Part 4: State JCEC members who
received JAIBG program funding during fiscal year 1998. Part 5: Local
JCEC members who received JAIBG program funding during fiscal year
Data Collection Notes: (1) This project also collected data from several
sources that are not included in this data collection, including
interviews with state and local administrators and planners as well as
program staff during two site visits to six states, annual telephone
interviews with JAIBG coordinators for all 56 jurisdictions, in-person
interviews with key officials at OJJDP during the JAIBG Act's passage
and implementation, close-out data for fiscal year 1998 JAIBG funds,
and training and technical assistance data gathered by the Development
Services Group (the JAIBG Training and Technical Assistance (TTA)
contractor). (2) JAIBG Subgrant Recipient Expenditure Survey Data
(Part 2) is called Supplemental Programmatic Information Form by the
final report. Because so few states supplied the breakdown of funds in
their reporting, the researchers were unable to report findings on the
Study Purpose: This study examined the operation of the Juvenile
1998 through 2000. Specifically the process evaluation examined the
implementation of the program throughout the country and how states
and eligible jurisdictions expended the funds. The JAIBG provided
block grants to state and local governments as financial incentives to
increase accountability within their juvenile justice systems by
implementing several juvenile justice policies and practices to ensure
accountability. These policies and practices included prosecuting as
adults juveniles who committed serious violent crimes, expanding the
array of graduated sanctions available to juvenile courts, holding
parents responsible for seeing that their children obey court orders,
and establishing juvenile records systems that parallel those for
adult offenders. The JAIBG defined 12 program purpose areas (PPAs)
that encompassed all phases of juvenile justice to which state and
local governments could award funds. The phases included law
enforcement, detention, prosecution, defense, courts, probation,
correctional institutions, and aftercare, as well as support services
like juvenile justice information systems.
Study Design: To conduct this process evaluation of JAIBG, the
researchers relied on secondary analysis of administrative data, which
was supplemented with additional information collected by surveys. The
State and Tribal Assistance Division of the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency (OJJDP) of the United States Department of Justice
developed a follow-up information form (FIF) to collect additional
JAIBG-specific information on subgrants to show states' distribution
of JAIBG funds within program purpose areas, and by type of
jurisdiction. Grantees submitted their initial followup information
for fiscal year 1998 on paper forms by April 2001 and entered the data
for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 through OJJDP's Web-based grant
management system (GMS) by April 2002. A total of 5,452 grantees
reported this follow-up information, which is contained in Part 1.
Abt Associates Inc. administered one data collection form and three
surveys by mail. After the administration of all four surveys in
December 2001, the researchers employed periodic remails, reminder
postcards, and followup phone calls. To learn more detail about the
distribution of funds, the researchers developed a form that enabled
them to look more closely at the purpose of the fiscal year 1998
award. A total of 999 JAIBG programs were sampled to receive the form
by mail and to provide the supplemental programmatic information.
JAIBG coordinators filled out the forms for all sampled programs in
their state. In one state, the JAIBG coordinator distributed the forms
to the subgrant recipients to complete. Supplemental data, found in
Part 2, are available for 862 programs. A total of 800 subgrant award
recipients returned the perceptions and attitudes surveys that were
mailed directly to the recipients of the above sampled programs. The
results are contained in Part 3. The JAIBG program stimulated
collaboration among local stakeholders in juvenile accountability
programs such as units of local government, police, courts,
prosecutors, defenders, probation, detention, community organizations,
not-for-profit service providers, schools, and human service
organizations. As members of these groups formally collaborated on
local Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalitions (JCECs), they formed
linkages and interactions that extended beyond JAIBG. A total of 1,139
state JCEC members received a copy of a perceptions and attitudes
survey. Data are available for 521 State JCEC members in Part
4. Finally, a total of 457 local JCEC members received a copy of a
perceptions and attitudes survey. Data are available from 177 local
JCEC members in Part 5.
Sample: To collect the data contained in Part 1, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) intended to gather
subgrantee award information annually on the follow-up information
form (FIF). However they experienced difficulties with their Web-based
grant management system. The reporting rate for each year of JAIBG
funding was 88.9 percent for 1998, 63.0 percent for 1999, and 74.2
percent for 2000. The sampling procedure for the supplemental
instrument consisted of selecting all awards made to state subgrant
award recipients in 1998, resulting in 210 awards. Based on a
robustness and waiver typology developed by the researchers, 240 local
subgrant 1998 award forms were randomly sampled from typologies 1, 3,
and 4. All typology 2 forms were selected, resulting in 69 forms. In
total, 999 programs from fiscal year 1998 were sampled to provide the
supplemental information contained in Part 2. This sample was taken
from only 53 of the 56 jurisdictions, as three had not submitted
fiscal year 1998 FIF forms. The data in Part 3 was collected via
surveys that were sent directly to the same 1998 subgrant award
recipients as the above 999 sampled programs. To collect the data in
Part 4, the researchers obtained Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalitions
(JCEC) membership lists from the state's JAIBG coordinator for all
states and territories except Alaska. In total, 1,189 state JCEC
members received a copy of the perceptions and attitudes survey.
Because of the large number of local JCEC members and the difficulty
in obtaining current lists, a stratified sampling procedure was used
to collect the data in Part 5. States were first ordered within
typology categories according to their total JAIBG allocation after
which the medial allocation for each category was computed. The
researcher then randomly selected two states above the median and two
states below, as well as alternates. A total of 16 states were
selected along with alternates. Following the selection of states, the
researchers used the fiscal year 1998 FIF form as the basis for local
JCEC selection. First, they removed all forms in which the
jurisdiction type "state" or "state agency" was indicated. Second,
duplicate grant recipients were eliminated. Third, the remaining forms
were divided into "yes" or "no" categories based on whether the
subgrantee represented a regional coalition in order to include
variation in collaboration. Fourth, forms in these two categories were
numbered and random-number generated to select one form from each
category. Alternates were also selected at that time. Following this
selection, the researchers used local JCEC member information provided
on the FIF form, or they requested the information from the state
JAIBG coordinator. Through this process, the researchers developed a
sample of 457 local JCEC members.
Description of Variables: Variables in Part 1 include state, fiscal year,
federal award number, state subgrant award number, jurisdiction type,
planning typology of state, state subgrant award amount, amount of
funds budgeted for administrative purposes and for each of 12 purpose
areas, total amount of funds spent in subgrant, and number of the
various entities involved in juvenile crime prevention. Variables in
Part 2 include federal grant number, state subgrant award number,
jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, subgrant award amount,
type of program, primary purpose of funded programs in each of the 12
purpose areas, whether the funds supported a new program in that
purpose area, and allocation of funds (administrative costs, benefits,
construction, contract services/consulting, equipment, supplies and
operating expenses, personnel, travel, other) and total funds in each
purpose area. Variables in Part 3 include state, planning typology of
state, and recipient's professional affiliations (by category). The
survey included questions about needs for which funds could not be
used, satisfaction with flexibility of the JAIBG program in allowing
selection of funding priorities, whether there were specific obstacles
presented in the JAIBG structure that prevented the program from
meeting juvenile justice needs, and whether the recipient was
satisfied with the time it took to receive the funding. Variables in
Part 4 and Part 5 include state, planning typology of state, and
professional affiliation (by category). The surveys included questions
about satisfaction with the pass-through provision, satisfaction with
program purpose areas, whether there were juvenile justice needs for
which the state or locality could not use the JAIBG funds,
satisfaction with flexibility of the JAIBG program in allowing
meeting juvenile justice needs, whether the planning process
identified needs accurately and helped allocate funds in a way that
met their juvenile justice needs, whether the JCEC got useful
information about the progress of funded projects, whether the state
or locality achieved its intended outcomes from the JAIBG grant, and
satisfaction with the time it took OJJDP to provide funds. In
addition, the state JCEC members were asked if they were satisfied
with the formula that determines the amount for which each state was
eligible. The local JCEC members were also asked how satisfied they
were with the timeliness that JAIBG funding was awarded to local
Response Rates: For Part 1, the reporting rate for each year of
JAIBG funding was 88.9 percent for 1998, 63.0 percent for 1999, and
74.2 percent for 2000. For Part 2, of the 53 sampled jurisdictions
only 39 (73.6 percent) responded, resulting in an overall response
rate of 86.4 percent. For Part 3, the response rate was 80.1
percent. For Part 4 and Part 5, the researchers calculated adjusted
response rates after the elimination of cases in the sample with
invalid contact information and those inappropriately contacted. For
Part 4, the response rate was 45.7 percent and the adjusted response
rate was 50.7 percent. For Part 5, the response rate was 38.5 percent
and the adjusted response rate was 47.6 percent.
Presence of Common Scales: For Parts 1-2, no scales were used, and for Parts 3-5,
Original ICPSR Release: 2006-09-22
Parent, Dale G., Barnett, Liz
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants: Assessing Initial Implementation. NIJ Research for Policy.
NCJ 210116, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Parent, Dale, Barnett, Liz
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program: National Evaluation, Final Report. NCJ 202150, Abs Associates [producer], National Institute of Justice [distributor].