Juvenile Justice: Status of Delinquency Prevention Program and Description of Local Projects
Published: 1996-08-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments Act's Title V incentive grant program for local delinquency prevention, focusing on: (1) the program's status and what types of projects are being funded; (2) the number of states and local governments that applied for Title V funds; (3) the amount of 1994 and 1995 grants that have been awarded as of December 31, 1995; (4) the sources and amounts of matching funds committed to local delinquency prevention projects; (5) whether eligibility requirements have affected Title V participation; and (6) other types of funding that has supported local delinquency prevention activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that: (1) as of March 1996, $29.6 of the $33 million in 1994 and 1995 Title V grants had been awarded to 54 jurisdictions and an additional $1 million was awarded for 6 grants to local jurisdictions under the Safe Futures Program; (2) of the 51 jurisdictions reviewed, 45 awarded $18.9 million in Title V subgrants to local governments to support 277 delinquency prevention projects; (3) these subgrantees spent about $3.6 million of their funds as of December 1995; (4) 44 jurisdictions received $17.2 million in Title V matching funds for 1994 and 1995; (5) 7 jurisdictions did not award subgrants; (6) the 2-year total funding for the 277 local delinquency prevention projects was about $36 million; (7) most of these projects addressed delinquency affecting youth in early or middle adolescence; (8) over 75 percent of the projects emphasized the prevention of delinquent activity, attempted to reduce delinquent behavior and recidivism, and addressed multiple risk factors; (9) most projects used community-based outreach intervention programs and services as well as some sort of parent training in conflict resolution and after-school program; (10) local governments generally reported that act's core requirements were not a barrier to local government participation in Title V program activities; (11) while 19 jurisdictions devoted $319 million in funds to support delinquency prevention activities in 1995, 31 jurisdictions did not know how much local or private funding was devoted to these activities; and (12) in 1995, nine other federal agencies reportedly spent $4.3 billion to support juvenile delinquency prevention, juvenile justice, or youth-related programs.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Title V of the reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) established an incentive grants program for local delinquency prevention. Title V is designed to provide a dedicated funding source for delinquency prevention and early intervention programs to units of general local government. As stated in Title V, Congress found that (1) it was more effective in human and fiscal terms to prevent delinquency than to attempt to control or change it, (2) half or more of all states were unable to spend any juvenile justice formula grant funds on delinquency prevention because of other priorities, and (3) federal incentives were needed to assist states and local communities in mobilizing delinquency prevention policies and programs.
The 1992 reauthorization required us to submit to Congress a study of the incentive grant program for local juvenile delinquency prevention. We agreed with your offices to provide information on the status of the program and a description of the types of projects for which incentive grant funds are being used. Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) which states and how many units of general local government applied for and received Title V incentive grant funds; (2) how much fiscal years 1994 and 1995 grant money had been awarded and how much had been spent as of December 31, 1995; (3) the sources and amounts of matching funds committed to local delinquency prevention projects; (4) what Title V funds were used for; (5) whether eligibility requirements have affected Title V participation; and (6) what funding, other than Title V, was provided to support local delinquency prevention activities.
To meet our objectives, we surveyed the 50 states, District of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories (jurisdictions) to obtain Title V-related data; discussed the status of program implementation with the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and selected state and local juvenile justice officials; and visited 6 local juvenile delinquency prevention projects in 3 states to observe how they were spending Title V funds. Wyoming did not respond to our survey questions because it did not apply for its allocation of Title V funds in 1994 or 1995. Also, we did not receive responses from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. According to our survey responses, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina had not made awards of subgrants to units of general local government as of December 31, 1995.
We did our work between October 1995 and June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology appears in appendix I. On June 17, 1996, we provided the Attorney General and Administrator of OJJDP with a draft of this report for comment. We discuss their representatives’ comments at the end of this report, and we incorporated the technical information they provided in this report as appropriate. We also provided sections of the draft report related to the projects we visited to state and project officials for their review. We incorporated their comments where appropriate.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Title V of the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 authorizes OJJDP to award incentive grant funds to the states, which in turn are to award subgrants to units of general local government to support local juvenile delinquency prevention projects. Congress appropriated $13 million in fiscal year 1994 and $20 million in fiscal year 1995 for these purposes.
Title V grant funds are to serve as stimuli for local governments to mobilize support from community leaders, develop multiyear prevention plans, and pool public and private resources in implementing programs designed to reduce the future incidence of delinquent behavior and youth crime through adoption of effective strategies that address risk factors for delinquency. To be eligible for Title V funds, the grantees are to provide a 50-percent match of the grant amount, including in-kind contributions (e.g., lease of office space or equipment paid by local government or private sources) to fund the activity.
OJJDP also administers other programs such as the Title II Formula Grant Program. Title II of the 1974 act provides grants-in-aid to states and local governments to improve juvenile justice systems and to prevent and control delinquency. To receive and remain eligible for funds under Title V, jurisdictions must be in compliance with Title II formula grant program core requirements. The four key core requirements are (1) not detaining status offenders or nonoffenders (e.g., neglected children) in secure detention or correctional facilities, (2) not detaining or confining juveniles in any institution where they have contact with adult detainees, (3) not detaining or confining juveniles in adult jails or lockups, and (4) demonstration of efforts to reduce the disproportionate confinement of minority youth where it exists.
According to the Department of Justice Delinquency Prevention Program guidelines, approximately 70 percent of the jurisdictions at one time or another have devoted 100 percent of available Title II formula grant funds toward meeting the four core requirements. As a result, many jurisdictions have been limited in the amounts of OJJDP Title II funds that they could devote to delinquency prevention.
Since the Title V program started, OJJDP has issued two annual reports to Congress. Its 1994 report (1) highlighted activities and accomplishments during the first year of Title V implementation, (2) described efforts to foster interagency coordination of delinquency prevention activities, and (3) contained recommendations for future Title V activities. The 1995 report (1) described efforts to set the foundation for the success of Title V by capacity building (e.g., providing training and technical assistance) and establishing coordination and collaboration within Justice, between federal agencies, and at state and local levels; (2) identified early indications of success; and (3) provided conclusions on past and future contributions of Title V.
subsections: section_title: Title V Program: Risk-Focused Strategy for Delinquency Prevention
paragraphs: According to OJJDP, the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program has been implemented on the basis of local adoption of “risk-focused prevention” strategies such as those identified in the social development prevention model, Communities That Care (CTC), developed by J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano, Jr. of the University of Washington in Seattle. OJJDP guidelines call for jurisdictions and localities to consider this model, or comparable risk-focused prevention approaches, by (1) identifying risk factors known to be associated with delinquent behavior operating within communities, (2) assessing those protective factors that buffer the effect of the identified risk factors, and (3) targeting program interventions to occur at the earliest appropriate stage in a child’s development and within the local community. The CTC model defines five categories of risk factors that have been found to be predictive of juvenile delinquency: individual characteristics, such as alienation, rebelliousness, and lack of bonding to society; family influences, such as parental conflict, child abuse, poor family management practices, and history of problem behavior affecting the family (e.g., substance abuse, criminality, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of school); school experiences, such as early academic failure and lack of peer group influences, such as friends who engage in problem behavior (minor criminality, drugs, gangs, and violence); and community and neighborhood factors, such as economic deprivation, high rates of substance abuse and crime, and neighborhood disorganization.
According to the CTC model, protective factors must be introduced to counter these risk factors. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that moderate a juvenile’s exposure to risk. Protective factors fall into three basic categories: (1) individual characteristics, such as a resilient temperament and a positive social orientation; (2) bonding with prosocial family members, teachers, adults, and friends; and (3) healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior.
Risk-focused delinquency prevention is intended to provide communities with a conceptual framework for (1) identifying and prioritizing risk factors, (2) assessing how current resources are being used, (3) identifying needed resources, and (4) choosing specific programs and strategies that directly address risk factors through the enhancement of protective factors. According to state and local officials, this approach requires a commitment by, and participation of, the entire community in developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy for preventing delinquency.
section_title: Title V Implementation
paragraphs: The Title V program is implemented in two phases. During phase one, the assessment and planning phase, communities interested in participating in the Title V Program must form a local prevention policy board (PPB) and conduct an assessment to identify and prioritize the risk factors operating within their community. On the basis of the risk factor assessment, the applicant community then must develop a comprehensive 3-year delinquency prevention plan that outlines specific programs and services to be implemented. This plan serves as the substantive basis for the community’s application to the state’s juvenile justice advisory group, or its designated administrative agency, for Title V funding. The programs and services to be implemented must be designed to reduce the impact of identified risk factors on children living in the applicant community.
Phase two of the Title V process involves the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the programs and services specified during phase one, as well as the ongoing coordination of services within the applicant communities. (See app. II for an example that illustrates this process.)
section_title: Participation in Title V Program
paragraphs: According to OJJDP, 49 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 of 6 U.S. territories applied for and received Title V incentive grant funds administered by OJJDP. One state, Wyoming, opted out of the program.According to the Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs within Justice, as of March 29, 1996, OJJDP had awarded $29.6 million in Title V funds to the jurisdictions in fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
subsections: section_title: Subgrant Awards and Expenditures
paragraphs: Juvenile justice officials responding to our survey reported receiving 796 applications for subgrants of Title V funds during 1994 and 1995. As of December 31, 1995, they had awarded subgrants to 332 units of general local government. Table 1 shows the number of local governments applying for Title V subgrants and the number receiving subgrant awards in calendar years 1994 and 1995 for jurisdictions responding to our survey.
Some of the juvenile justice officials reported that 286 of the 796 subgrant applications were rejected, denied, or otherwise turned away in 1994 and 1995, specifically because of a lack of available Title V funds. Another 178 applications were not approved for other reasons.
During calendar years 1994 and 1995, 45 jurisdictions reported awarding about $18.9 million of Title V funds to units of general local government. This represents 64 percent of the $29.6 million in Title V funds awarded to jurisdictions for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. These 332 subgrant awards provide partial support for 277 local juvenile delinquency prevention projects. In addition, OJJDP awarded $1 million for six grants under its Safe Futures Program. The Safe Futures Program provided fiscal year 1995 funds from nine program areas, including Title V, to fund comprehensive continuum of care programs in urban, rural, and Native American jurisdictions.
About 77 percent (or 213) of the 277 projects that had received subgrant awards through December 31, 1995, were in their first year and 23 percent (or 64) were receiving their second year of Title V funds. Juvenile justice officials reported that 197 of the 277 local prevention projects (about 71 percent) were active and had spent about $3.6 million (or about 19 percent) of the Title V funds awarded in subgrants as of December 31, 1995. (See app. III for additional information on the number and dollar amount of Title V subgrant awards and expenditures, by jurisdiction.)
section_title: Amount and Sources of Matching Funds
paragraphs: The responding jurisdictions reported that the $18.9 million in federal funds awarded to localities were matched by an estimated $17.2 million in cash and in-kind contributions from jurisdictions, local governments, and nongovernmental sources; these matching funds were considerably more than the minimum of 50 percent of the federal share required by the act. Figure 1 illustrates the amount and relative proportion of matching funds reported by type and source.
3% State government in-kind ($472,119)
Local government cash ($6,144,137)
Local government in-kind ($4,926,535)
Total funding for 277 local delinquency prevention projects (federal and matching shares) was $36.2 million over the 2-year period. (See app. IV for additional information on amounts and sources of matching funds, by jurisdiction.)
Twenty-nine of the 51 responding jurisdictions administering Title V program activities reported that they retained about $900,000 (3 percent) of the $29.6 million in Title V funds awarded to them by OJJDP in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. As shown in figure 2, jurisdictions reported using these funds for such purposes as supporting program administration and management of Title V activities and providing technical assistance and training to local governments. (See app. V for additional information, by jurisdiction, on uses of Title V funds retained by juvenile justice agencies.)
section_title: Description of Local Delinquency Prevention Projects
paragraphs: According to our survey, respondents provided the following information regarding the focus of Title V projects. In addition, our visits to six local projects also provided perspectives on the projects.
About three-fourths (209) of the 277 projects reportedly emphasized both primary and secondary prevention in addressing multiple sets of risk factors, in 3 or more problem areas, such as community, schools, peers, family, and individuals.
About 90 percent (250) of the 277 projects reportedly employed 2 or more different “Promising Approaches” strategies, advocated by the CTC model. About 74 percent of the projects employed two or more other program approaches or intervention strategies and 88 percent of the projects used two or more program methodologies.
About 58 percent (161) of the 277 projects reportedly focused solely on providing services to clients, such as youth or parents; and 36 percent (100) aimed at both changing organizations, agencies, rules, settings, institutions, or established practices, and providing services to clients (see fig. 3).
Focus only on providing services to clients 4% Focus only on systems changes (e.g., changing organizations)
Youth in early to middle adolescence (ages 12 through 16) were the primary target group reportedly addressed in over two-thirds of Title V projects; over half (54 percent) of the projects were reportedly addressed to elementary school age children (ages 5 through 11).
Eighty-four percent (231) of the 276 projects for which data were available reportedly addressed delinquency problems in the general community, such as high rates of residential mobility, community social disorganization, low levels of attachment to the neighborhood, norms that favored adoption of delinquent or criminal values, and extreme economic deprivation.
About 70 percent (194) of the 276 projects reportedly addressed problems in school settings, such as early and persistent antisocial behavior, academic failure, and lack of commitment to school.
Sixty-eight percent (187) of the 276 projects reportedly addressed problems in the family domain such as poor management of interpersonal relationships among family members and others, family conflict, history of problem behavior from generation to generation, and parental attitudes favoring involvement in problem behaviors that can lead to delinquency and possibly a career of crime.
About 45 percent (125) of the 276 projects reportedly addressed problems associated with peers and peer groups, such as friends who engage in delinquent behavior.
Sixty-five percent (178) of the 276 projects reportedly addressed problems that are exhibited by individuals, such as alienation and rebelliousness, development of favorable attitudes toward misconduct, and early introduction or initiation of behavior problems.
The objectives of these 276 projects reportedly addressed various delinquency risk factors in targeting program intervention strategies and methods. Four of the 17 juvenile delinquency risk factors we identified in our survey were rated as both significant and of high priority to the community by over one-half of the 276 local juvenile delinquency projects. These include (1) family management problems (66 percent of the projects), (2) availability of drugs (58 percent of the projects), (3) academic failure (52 percent of the projects), and (4) friends who engage in problem behaviors (51 percent of the projects). Nine additional risk factors were identified as significant and of high priority by local PPBs in over one-third of local delinquency prevention projects and include, in descending order of frequency (1) family conflict, (2) high incidence/ prevalence of violations of community laws and norms, (3) low neighborhood attachment and high levels of community disorganization, (4) parental attitudes and conduct that favor involvement in delinquent or problem behaviors, (5) early and persistent antisocial behavior, (6) extreme economic deprivation, (7) alienation and rebelliousness, (8) attitudes favorable toward or condoning problem behavior, and (9) a family history of problem behavior.
Local delinquency prevention projects were reportedly using a wide variety of program intervention strategies and prevention methods. About 90 percent (or 250) of 277 projects reportedly utilized 2 or more “Promising Approaches” advocated by the CTC model.
Community mobilization, parent training, and after-school programs were the 3 most frequently cited of the 16 CTC-advocated strategies, closely followed by community/school policies, family therapy, school behavior management strategies, and mentoring with behavioral management.
Two-thirds of the 266 projects reportedly employed community-based outreach services to involve and work with parents, families, and juveniles and stress programs for positive youth development that assist at-risk youth.
About 50 percent of the projects reportedly embraced comprehensive programs that meet the needs of youth through the collaboration of local youth/family service systems.
The following methods were used by at least one-third of the projects reporting on their local delinquency prevention programming—parent training, school-based education, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, family and peer counseling, outreach, recreation, and services coordination.
During site visits made to six local delinquency projects in three states we found that each project addressed itself to an array of delinquency risk factors, protective factors, and program strategies designed to prevent juvenile delinquency in their communities. A brief description of each of the six projects we visited is provided in appendix VI.
section_title: Effect of Title II Eligibility Requirements on Title V Participation
paragraphs: Twenty-six jurisdictions that had awarded subgrants reported that 83 of the 332 subgrantees (about 25 percent) receiving Title V funds also received $6.1 million in Title II formula grant money in fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
About one-half of the 51 jurisdictions responded that the availability of federal funds under Title V encouraged localities in their jurisdictions to comply with the Title II core requirements to qualify for and receive subgrants under Title V. About three-fourths of the 51 jurisdictions indicated Title V incentive grant activities were supportive to a great or very great extent of the overall goals of the formula grant programs in their jurisdictions.
About two-thirds of the 51 jurisdictions reported that the requirement to comply with Title II core requirements to be eligible to receive Title V funding was not a barrier to local government participation in Title V program activities. Thirty percent said that compliance requirements were a barrier to participation and the remaining 4 percent said that they did not know.
Of the 51 jurisdictions responding to our survey, 7 reported rejecting, denying, or turning away 23 subgrant applications for Title V funding in 1994 and 1995 because the units of general local government applying for the subgrants were not in compliance with Title II core requirements. This number (23) represents about 3 percent of the 796 local governments that applied for local delinquency prevention subgrants under Title V.
section_title: Other Funding in Support of Delinquency Prevention Activities
paragraphs: Officials in 19 jurisdictions reported that $319 million in state funds were devoted to support delinquency prevention activities in 1995, in addition to that allocated and committed as matching funds in support of Title V projects. But the majority of state juvenile justice officials (31) reported they did not know how much state money was devoted to support delinquency prevention in their jurisdictions. Only a few jurisdictions provided information on amounts of other money provided in 1995 by local governments, not-for-profit and charitable organizations, for-profit businesses, or other nongovernmental organizations which was devoted to support juvenile delinquency prevention activities. (See table 2.)
A summary of preliminary information OJJDP received from nine other federal agencies indicates that approximately $4.3 billion was spent to support juvenile delinquency related prevention, juvenile justice, or youth-related programs and activities in fiscal year 1995. For example, the National Institutes of Health reported spending approximately $54 million (0.6 percent of its $9.1 billion budget for grants-in-aid) on delinquency prevention activities. OJJDP pointed out that, while some agencies provided detailed information regarding the levels of funds spent directly on youth-related programs and activities, others were not able to break out the amount of funds directly spent for such purposes. For example, the Department of Labor indicated that it spent $3.5 billion in youth-related programs (including the Summer Youth Employment Program, School-to-Work Program, and Job Corps), which would account for approximately 40 percent of Labor’s total agency budget in fiscal year 1992.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: On July 10, 1996, we met with Department of Justice officials, including the Deputy Administrator of OJJDP. The officials agreed with the material in the report. Their comments have been incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; Administrator, OJJDP; Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies also will be made available to others upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. Should you need additional information or have questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The 1992 reauthorizarion of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 5781 note) requires us to prepare and submit to Congress a study of the Title V program. On the basis of discussions with your offices we agreed to provide information on the status of the Title V program, including a description of the types of projects for which incentive grant funds are being used. Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) which states and how many units of local government applied for and received Title V incentive grant funds; (2) how much fiscal years 1994 and 1995 grant money had been awarded and how much had been spent as of December 31, 1995; (3) the sources and amounts of matching funds committed to local delinquency prevention projects; (4) what Title V funds were used for; (5) whether Title II eligibility requirements have affected Title V participation; and (6) what funding, other than Title V, was provided to support local delinquency prevention activities.
To answer these questions, we collected descriptive data and other information using a structured data collection instrument in a nationwide survey of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories; discussed the status of program implementation with OJJDP officials and selected state and local juvenile justice officials; and conducted site visits with 6 local delinquency prevention projects in 3 states to observe how some Title V funds are being used. We selected the states we visited because they were in the same geographic region as Washington, D.C., and had relatively large amounts of Title V funding as compared to other states. We selected the specific projects to visit on the basis of discussions with state and OJJDP officials. Specifically, we focused on projects that were (1) active, (2) reported by state officials to be representative of Title V projects, and (3) diverse in their goals and objectives.
In developing the survey, we discussed the questions with state juvenile justice specialists. Our survey asked state juvenile justice specialists to identify the types of local delinquency prevention projects being supported by subgrant awards. State juvenile justice officials used checklists of information categories that we developed to provide descriptive information for each local delinquency prevention project supported by a subgrant award in their state in calendar years 1994 or 1995. After receiving their responses, we conducted edit checks of key responses for completeness. When necessary, we contacted respondents to resolve any apparent inconsistencies. In addition, we compared the total funding they reported for Title V with that provided by OJJDP to ensure completeness and consistency of survey responses. We did not receive responses from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
We did our work between October 1995 and June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Summary of Title V Process—Blair County, Pennsylvania
paragraphs: Blair County’s project is a countywide comprehensive juvenile delinquency prevention program using the CTC model. Blair County’s process illustrated how a local community developed a comprehensive plan and implemented a multifaceted delinquency prevention project as a collaborative communitywide effort.
Blair County officials contacted the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency to inform state officials of the county’s interest in delinquency prevention. Blair County officials sent a team led by a judge and a county commissioner to the OJJDP-sponsored Key Leader Orientation training session on the Title V Program held in June 1994. Other team members included a county school superintendent, the county human services director, and the county’s chief juvenile probation officer.
The county adopted the risk-focused approach using the CTC model. In July 1994, the Board of Blair County’s Family Resource Center accepted responsibility for developing and overseeing what would become the Title V project—the “Blair County Comprehensive Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Program.” A local PPB was formed to further develop and steer the program. The PPB was composed of the staff of the Family Resource Center and has since expanded to 32 members.
section_title: Funds Allocated, Awarded, and Spent and Number of Subgrant Projects, by Jurisdiction, as Reported
paragraphs: Percent of allocated funds spent through 12/31/95 (continued)
section_title: Reported Sources and Estimated Amounts of Matching Funds, by Jurisdiction
section_title: Reported Uses of Title V Funds Retained by Juvenile Justice Agencies
paragraphs: Technical assistance to local government (continued)
section_title: Description of Six Local Delinquency Prevention Projects
paragraphs: We developed the following descriptions of six projects from visits to local project sites, interviews with project staff, observations of project activities, discussions with county and state officials, and documentation and comments they provided. We did not verify the information provided.
subsections: section_title: Blair County, Pennsylvania, Comprehensive Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Program
paragraphs: Blair County, Pennsylvania, adopted a risk-focused approach based on the CTC model in designing and implementing a comprehensive program to address factors that lead or contribute to juvenile delinquency and crime.
Risk Factors: Blair County assigned the highest priority and significance to the need to deal with (1) extreme economic and social deprivation, (2) family management problems, (3) family conflict, and (4) early and persistent antisocial behaviors.
Resources Assessment: A resources analysis commissioned by the PPB identified an array of services and diverse funding streams, but also identified a lack of existing parenting programs to assist families in handling conflict and managing family problems that can lead to delinquency. The assessment also revealed the need for countywide community/media mobilization efforts to generate action in all segments of the community to address serious and increasingly costly delinquency problems.
Goals: The overall goal of the project was to increase family and community prosocial bonding and improve standards of behavior among children while reducing risk factors that lead to adolescent problem behaviors.
Objectives: Project objectives were established in each of three areas of concern—community, family, and school—to address four sets of risk factors. To address extreme economic and social deprivation, the project promoted collaborative programs and activities to increase opportunities for job readiness, skill development, and positive social bonding to increase the economic and social stability of children and families. This was intended to increase the likelihood that children and adolescents will find positive alternatives to engaging in delinquent activities.
Family management problems and family conflict were addressed through increasing the availability and accessibility of parenting programs to improve family members’ abilities to practice effective management techniques, cope with stress, and reduce violent behavior within the family unit and among individual members. Problems associated with early and persistent antisocial behaviors by children were being addressed through a school-based program of training in conflict resolution. This program included the parents and siblings of at-risk elementary school children in order to reduce the incidence of adolescent problem behaviors that can lead to delinquency and crime.
Intervention Strategy: Community/media mobilization and parent training.
Project Description: Project activities included (1) organizing focus groups, with participants such as county agency officials, to discuss and develop strategies for coordinating county job-readiness and training programs for children, adolescents, and adults; (2) conducting media campaigns to heighten awareness of and involvement in program activities and services; (3) developing and implementing parenting education programs; (4) identifying and supporting early education providers in developing positive behaviors among children; and (5) providing school-based programs of conflict resolution and prosocial skills training.
An individual was hired to mobilize the community and the media through speaking engagements to promote the program. His activities included providing community orientations, carrying out a media campaign that promoted the availability of resources for children and families, developing a list of all job/readiness training programs, conducting workshops, and promoting positive community values. Incentives and supports for parenting education programs were being developed, and services were being made available to families identified as being in need.
Target Area/Group: Blair County’s program was organized as a countywide comprehensive juvenile delinquency prevention program using the CTC model. Some project activities were targeted at all age groups, while others concentrated on young parents, elementary school children, or adolescents.
Project Period: April 1995 to March 31, 1997.
section_title: Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, Communities That CARE Project
paragraphs: The Dauphin County Human Services Department, serving the Greater Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, metropolitan area, contracted with a private nonprofit community development organization, the Community Action Commission, to operate its delinquency prevention project. Dauphin County’s Title V project adopted the CTC model but was part of a larger community development effort. Harrisburg was an “Enterprise Community,” which made it eligible for $3 million in federal Social Services Block Grant funds to support economic initiatives.
Risk Factors: Four sets of risk factors were determined to be significant and of highest priority at the onset of this project: (1) low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization, (2) extreme economic and social deprivation, (3) family management problems, and (4) early and persistent antisocial behavior.
Resources Assessment: The resources assessment revealed a gap reflecting a lack of resources devoted to community organization and collaborative planning.
Goals: Three goals were set: (1) economic empowerment—to encourage healthy beliefs by youth regarding their economic futures, (2) family support—to strengthen internal management capacities of families with young children, and (3) mobilization against violence—to create a nonviolent culture among and around youth and their families.
Objectives: Dauphin County established 12 objectives for its Title V project. Five of the 12 objectives were established to reach the first goal of economic empowerment targeting youth ages 10 to 17 and their families. They were to (1) start 3 neighborhood/family owned businesses; (2) create 24 new jobs, with one-half of them for youth; (3) train 100 youth in business development skills; (4) rehabilitate and occupy 3 vacant commercial properties in the target area; and (5) lower the number of street arrests on blocks occupied by new businesses by 50 percent.
To achieve the goal of family support, another five objectives were established targeting at-risk families with preschool children, ages birth to 6 years. They included (1) starting 2 new family centers, (2) instituting monthly home visits to provide parenting education for 200 families, (3) creating 2 new family support networks serving 20 families per network, (4) lowering absenteeism from the family among these 200 families by 60 percent, and (5) achieving less than 10-percent retention rates for first graders from network-involved families.
The last 2 of the 12 objectives were established to achieve the goal of mobilizing against violence by targeting children ages 6 to 10 and their families. They included lowering suspension rates for fighting in elementary schools by 70 percent and lowering the number of violent incidents at community and youth centers by 70 percent.
Intervention Strategy: The core strategy was aimed at creating collaborative planning and coordination of specific programs that address juvenile delinquency risk factors. The community collaborative approach was to leverage other programs and resources to address risk factors operating in target neighborhoods. Community mobilization strategies were used to build and support teams of professionals (education, business, human services, law enforcement); parents; residents; and youth to counteract effects of the four risk factors.
Project Description: The project was designed to develop and implement family preservation, violence prevention, and economic training programs. It also sought to promote revitalization in three depressed neighborhoods, strengthen community organization, provide parenting education through satellite family centers, and promote conflict resolution through nonviolent means. This project focused on changing organizations, agencies, rules, settings, institutions, and established practices. The project also delivered services to clients.
Economic development initiatives included fostering successful neighborhood-based family/community-owned businesses and cooperatives to complement ongoing job training and business development projects. Economic development and training components targeted youth as potential employees or owners of local businesses, promoted neighborhood economic growth through business development training, and provided technical assistance to small business owners and potential owners. For example, a series of workshops was provided for business owners and potential owners focusing on (1) identifying the economy of the neighborhood, including the in-flow and out-flow of cash and capital; (2) developing marketable business ideas; (3) developing sound business plans; and (4) marketing business concepts to obtain start-up capital. These efforts were envisioned to increase family and youth economic empowerment and result in two to three new businesses within a year. Emphasis was placed on businesses owned by families in the target area and that included young people in helping to plan and be employed by them.
Two new family centers were to be established to develop family support networks, sponsor collaborative education workshops, and provide in-home parent education visits. Ineffective family management was to be addressed through development of skills, confidence, support networks, and capacities of at-risk families to enable them to manage their day-to-day lives. These efforts were seen as helping to create protective factors for youth by (1) stabilizing their home lives; (2) helping parents to promote healthy beliefs and standards; and (3) establishing bonds with others (e.g., parents, prosocial peers, and adults) that reinforce healthy modes of behavior.
Another aspect of the project, mobilization against youth violence, was designed to counteract the risk of early and persistent antisocial behavior, particularly the growth of violent behavior such as fighting among children in elementary school. It aimed to prevent juvenile delinquency through community organization and youth education activities that teach and reinforce nonviolent means of social interaction and conflict resolution. The project also included an intensive year-round, violence prevention campaign that sponsored conflict resolution seminars and organized recreational and social family nights at youth centers.
Other program activities included peer mediation, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, parenting training, the establishment of secondary (satellite) family centers within focus areas, and special activities in each neighborhood. Other available services included family social services, comprehensive case management, job readiness training and interviewing techniques, parenting programs on discipline and drug and alcohol awareness, after-school enrichment programs, and family and youth advocacy and outreach. Title V funds supported a full-time community organizer whose efforts were designed to lead to more effective use of agency resources directed toward target neighborhoods and to attract and effectively use additional funds from public and private sources.
Target Area: The target area included Allison Hill, South Allison Hill, and some South Harrisburg neighborhoods. A multisite strategy was employed to ensure that school-age children in the target area were involved in an intensive, high quality course in violence prevention before they were 11 years old.
Project Period: July 1995 to June 1997.
section_title: Montgomery County, Maryland, Leadership for Violence Prevention
paragraphs: Montgomery County, Maryland, adopted a schools-based juvenile delinquency prevention program to address the increase in violent behavior on the part of early adolescent youth in three middle schools. This increase in violence was attributed, in part, to the youths’ lack of self-esteem, leadership capabilities, and involvement with school staff and other students. Decreased school attendance; increasing rates of school suspension; and insufficient school, family, and community resources devoted to the critical period immediately following school hours led Montgomery County to expand the community use of schools as a vehicle for mobilizing community support and involvement in the lives of its young people.
Risk Factors: Montgomery County assigned the highest priority and significance to the need to deal with (1) lack of commitment to school, (2) early and persistent antisocial behavior, and (3) friends who engage in problem behavior.
Resources Assessment: The target community of Wheaton spent 8 years focused on identifying ways to reduce crime, violence, and substance abuse through the Wheaton Neighborhood Network. This was an outgrowth of a Community Partnership Grant from the Federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. County officials, school leaders, and heads of justice agencies combined their efforts to attack growing crime and delinquency problems in an area of the county experiencing a rapid influx of immigrant groups and high turnover among families moving into and out of neighborhood schools. Community-oriented policing initiatives under way in Montgomery County combined enforcement and service activities in support of school-based Title V funded activities.
Goals: The overall goal of the project was to reduce disproportionate occurrences of antisocial behavior, violent behavior, and substance abuse among middle school students.
Objectives: Project objectives were established to (1) increase student and parent participation in school, recreational activities, and related skill-building activities; (2) increase student academic success in school; (3) increase positive relationships among youth and between youth and others in the community; and (4) build networks of support for youth through involvement of community members in youth activities such as mentoring programs.
Intervention Strategy: The intervention strategy was to provide more after-school and weekend services for youth and adults; provide leadership training (including conflict resolution, peer mediation, anger management, and parent training); and institute a mentoring program to prevent substance abuse and school disruption and increase school achievement.
Project Description: Montgomery County’s Leadership for Violence Prevention Project provided leadership training, peer mediation, and a variety of after-school activities to increase student commitment to school, provide positive role models and experiences in the world of work, and decrease antisocial and delinquent acts in the school and the community. These included a summer prevocational apprenticeship program with business community partners, residential leadership training resulting in student-inspired and student-created action plans for after-school activities, and implementation of after-school enrichment programming at three middle schools in the Wheaton area of Silver Spring, Maryland. After-school programs initiated at all three schools included interscholastic sports; step clubs (emphasizing group-based, team planning); teen talk (to identify and discuss issues important to students); community services activities; and social skills training through drama and role playing.
Target Area/Group: The target group encompassed 1,000 sixth graders in 3 middle schools (Parkland, Sligo, and Lee) in the Wheaton area of southeastern Montgomery County, Maryland.
Project Period: July 1995 to June 1997.
section_title: Chesterfield County, Virginia, Restitution Through Community Service
paragraphs: The Chesterfield County, Virginia, Restitution Through Community Service program was intended to reduce recidivism on the part of youth who come into contact with the juvenile court system.
Risk Factors: Chesterfield County identified a pattern of events warranting the development of delinquency prevention program activities aimed at young people who have come to the attention of the juvenile justice system. Total juvenile violations have increased 51 percent since 1989. Felony assaults were up 121 percent and weapons violations were up 112 percent between 1989 and 1993. Other factors included increases in the number of (1) child abuse cases (e.g., incidents of inadequate parental supervision increased 93 percent from 1990 to 1993); (2) juveniles placed in residential treatment facilities out of the community; (3) juvenile runaways; (4) school failures (e.g., reading failures and drop-outs); (5) teen suicides, pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases; and (6) youth crime (particularly assault, substance abuse, and weapons violations) and the number of juvenile cases petitioned to court.
Resources Assessment: Chesterfield County focused on the need to expand the availability of assisted court placement of youthful offenders at work sites throughout the county to perform community service as a condition of their probation.
Goals: The goal was to intervene in the lives of young people at the point of their first arrest for delinquent behavior so that they would not commit delinquent acts in the future.
Objectives: The Chesterfield County project emphasized the establishment of community service locations to increase participation in restitution and court-ordered community services in conjunction with Virginia’s Comprehensive Services Act. It also supported developing diversion and intervention programs; mobilizing community support for families facing disruptions due to loss and change; engaging the community in providing positive opportunities and role models for delinquent youth; and setting constructive behavioral boundaries for young people on the brink of establishing a pattern of delinquent behavior.
Intervention Strategy: Alternatives to traditional handling of first-time young offenders through use of intermediate sanctions, restitution, and community service. The Title V project aimed to increase the number of community service sites.
Project Description: The thrust of this project was to utilize community service programs as a form of court-ordered restitution for offenders charged with less serious crimes in addressing individual risk characteristics and to develop individual and community resources. Activities included establishing community service agreements with 50 agencies, developing guidelines for use of community service in lieu of traditional adjudicative dispositions, training agency service site supervisors in techniques for working with youth, creating a site service directory listing task descriptions, identifying characteristics of youth who are more likely to be positively influenced by the program, and placing youth with service agencies. The Title V program had provided service to 95 youth who performed 3,912 hours of community service. Only 5 of these 95 youths had committed another crime, and the crimes were considered minor. As a result of the program, the number of sites in which to place the juveniles had increased from 20 at the beginning of the Title V project to 40 at the time of our visit. Some juveniles have obtained jobs as a result of their community service, while some others have returned to the program as volunteers to assist in implementing project activities.
Target Area/Group: This group comprised 250 adjudicated youth 17 years old and younger who lived in Chesterfield County, a large suburban county in the Richmond metropolitan area.
Project Period: July 1995 to June 1997.
section_title: Virginia Beach, Virginia, Building a Better Bayside
paragraphs: Building a Better Bayside was a school-based program of prevention activities intended to reduce peer conflict, strengthen family management, and reduce substance abuse among students and their families at Bayside High School, Bayside Middle School, and adjacent neighborhood communities in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The recent increase in crime rates, including guns, drugs, and juvenile gang-related activities, focused local officials’ attention on the need for delinquency prevention programming. Conflict among youth from adjacent neighborhoods near the intermediate and high schools in the Bayside school district led to the schools’ selection for both prevention and law enforcement activities. Virginia Beach has linked its efforts in community-oriented policing in support of Title V delinquency prevention efforts in these same neighborhoods as part of its multiagency approach to problem-solving planning.
Risk Factors: Virginia Beach has experienced a high rate of teen pregnancy and a dramatic increase in juvenile arrests for serious offenses, including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, weapons violations, and sex offenses (up 83 percent from 1988 to 1994). Risk assessments conducted under the direction of the PPB identified five sets of risk factors to be addressed: (1) early and persistent antisocial behavior, (2) lack of commitment to school, (3) early initiation of problem behavior, (4) friends who engage in problem behavior, and (5) family management problems.
Resources Assessment: The Virginia Beach prevention project drew upon assessments made by the Juvenile Crime Strategies Task Force, which was made up of nearly all the human services and public safety agencies serving the greater Virginia Beach area. The City Council established the Youth Services Coordinating Council recommended by the task force. Resources available through the school system and family services agencies were leveraged through the Title V project. Eleven agencies were participating in the project at the time of our visit.
Goals: The project’s goals were to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and delinquency in the target area by changing attitudes and behavior from violent conflict to those favorable to employing alternative dispute resolution methods as measured by referrals to peer mediation and peer mentoring programs and demonstration of appropriate goal-setting skills.
Objectives: Better Bayside’s objectives were to: (1) decrease the incidence of antisocial behavior (such as fighting, disruptive behavior in school, and peer disputes) by referral to peer mediation for conflict resolution; (2) increase acceptance by school faculty and administration of alternative dispute resolution techniques intended to result in increased referrals of potential problems to peer mediation for conflict resolution (e.g., to reduce verbal and physical fights); (3) increase the number of students using peer mentors and peer mentoring contacts as resources for information and support at school to decrease “in-school suspensions”; and (4) increase use of appropriate goal setting skills by students. The objectives are intended to lead to a decrease in court referrals for antisocial behavior among students exposed to peer mediation and conflict resolution training.
Intervention Strategy: Peer mediation, peer mentoring, and conflict resolution.
Project Description: Building a Better Bayside was an incentive program with the ultimate aim of reducing peer conflict, strengthening family management, and reducing substance abuse in the target area through five prevention activities: (1) peer mediation and confrontation skills training; (2) peer mentoring—training students to be role models for other students; (3) group substance abuse counseling and training for parents and teenagers; (4) goals setting—“Going for the Goal” (a 10-part program that teaches how to set goals); and (5) a CARE Youth Leadership Camp program to promote volunteerism, community conscientiousness, community responsibility, and productivity.
Examples of project activities included a summit on teen pregnancy involving 122 participants and a Leadership Camp involving over 200 student campers aged 6 to 13 and counselors from Bayside High School. The Camp focused on building self-esteem and team-building. Sixteen trained teenage mediators were working with other youth and teaching them ways to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.
Target Area/Group: The target area encompassed Bayside Intermediate and High Schools and adjoining neighborhoods and involved youth in early and mid-adolescence and their families.
Project Period: April 1995 to March 1997.
section_title: Norfolk, Virginia, Effective Prevention Program
paragraphs: The Norfolk, Virginia, Effective Prevention Program focused on elementary school age youth experiencing behavioral difficulties or school misconduct that made them candidates for suspension. The program provided alternatives to traditional 1- or 2-day out-of-school suspensions to students from Norfolk’s public schools. Candidates for the program attended either Saturday School, which emphasized a prevention curriculum, or the Alternatives to Violent Behavior Program (AVBP) operated by the James Barry Robinson Center, a nonprofit agency.
Risk Factors: Norfolk identified four risk factors toward which their prevention project was directed: (1) early and persistent antisocial behavior, (2) academic failure at the elementary school level, (3) alienation and rebelliousness, and (4) early initiation of problem behaviors.
Resources Assessment: Eight community organizations (such as the Norfolk Youth Services Citizen Advisory Board, Norfolk Interagency Consortium of Services to Youth, and the Human Services Council) played a role in the development of the Title V project. These organizations provided for coordination and integration of prevention activities directed at deficiencies in protective factors that result in (1) lack of bonding with positive role models, (2) lack of involvement in positive leisure activities, (3) lack of bonding (attachment) to school, and (4) lack of prosocial opportunities and academic success.
Goals: The goal was to reduce the number of out-of-school suspensions at the elementary school level by 25 percent and increase safety and security by offering students training on alternatives to violent behavior to reduce recidivism for the same offense by Saturday School program participants by 60 percent.
Objectives: Norfolk established five objectives for its Title V project: (1) reduce the number of suspensions at the elementary school level; (2) provide students with coping skills to resolve conflicts in positive ways; (3) increase parental involvement in the academic and disciplinary life of their children; (4) provide students with alternatives to violent behavior; and (5) strengthen the partnership between home and school.
Intervention Strategy: Alternatives to out-of-school suspension included a Saturday School option and provision of transportation to selected students to attend the AVBP. At the time of our visit Norfolk was developing programs and services to meet the needs of acting-out youth by establishing mentoring programs to provide positive role models; incorporating conflict resolution, decision-making, and life skills into existing recreational programming; targeting tutoring programs at children failing academically; and expanding recreational opportunities for all youth.
Project Description: The Norfolk Effective Prevention Program was directed at elementary school students who were candidates for suspension from school. The program offered two components; the Saturday School program and AVBP. Twelve Norfolk schools participated in the Saturday School program, which was available to 36 elementary schools. Parents were required to attend a 1-hour session. This was to provide the parents with information about schools and services available in the community and how to access those services, including where they could get additional help. While the parents are in training, the child is participating in a 3-hour session that focuses on the misbehavior that led to the referral to the Saturday School and assists the child in identifying ways to eliminate these problems. The effort grew out of a desire to increase the use and availability of school resources, e.g., keep the schools open on nights and weekends to meet community needs. The program operated in eight middle schools. The second component of the Norfolk Effective Prevention Program provided transportation to selected students to AVBP, which helped middle school students who exhibited tendencies toward violent behavior, such as fighting and hitting. Students were to be released from school during the school day and transported to another location where they receive intensive training on ways to reduce violent and combative behaviors. The program commenced operation on April 29, 1995. By December 1995, 65 students had participated in Norfolk’s Effective Prevention Program, 44 of them in the Saturday School program which became available in September 1995, and the remaining 21 students in the AVBP. Virginia state officials informed us that 70 percent of the participants completed the AVBP.
Target Area/Group: Elementary students recommended for suspension from school due to non-law-related violations who had not become constant and consistent discipline problems were candidates for the Saturday program, while students with more serious violations, who had been issued suspensions and who continued to exhibit aggressive behavior became candidates for transportation assistance to the AVBP. Students were drawn from 36 elementary schools in the city of Norfolk.
Project Period: April 1995 to March 1997.
section_title: Major Contributors to This Report
subsections: section_title: General Government Division, Washington, D.C.
section_title: Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C.
paragraphs: Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000  or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.  To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone.  A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.