Detailed Information on the
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Assessment

Collecting grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to public in a transparent and meaningful manner

Demonstrating progress in achieving its long-term outcome goals

Developing outcome-oriented performance goals and measures and making them available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner.

Tightening the grant funding criteria and reporting requirements to establish a link between program funding and performance.

Conducting an evaluation to determine the program's impact and addressing the evaluation findings.

Measure: Percent of program youth who exhibit a desired change in the targeted behavior (New measure, added August 2007).

Explanation:The purpose of this measure is to determine the extent programs are facilitating changes in youth behaviors or conditions which would make them less likely to commit delinquent acts in the future.

Measure: Percent of program yout who reoffend (New measure, added August 2007)

Explanation:Defined as "arrest or appearance at juvenile court for a new delinquent offense," this is a universal mandatory measure for all JABG programs. To comply with performance measure requirements, the grant-funded programs track the levels of new offending among all youth program participants, and report them to OJJDP as part of their periodic progress reports. Official records (police, juvenile court) are the preferred data source.

Measure: Percent of grantees implementing one or more evidence-based programs. (New measure, added August 2007)

Explanation:The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 requires that state agencies receiving Juvenile Justice Formula Grant funds "give priority in funding to programs and activities that are based on rigorous, systematic, and objective research that is scientifically based." OJJDP has expanded the intent of these requirements to all programs funded by OJJDP, including the JABG. This performance measure tracks the extent to which funded programs are implementing programs that have been shown to prevent and/or reduce delinquency and associated negative outcomes.

Measure: Percent of funds allocated to grantees implementing one or more evidence-based programs

Explanation:The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 requires that state agencies receiving Juvenile Justice Formula Grant funds "give priority in funding to programs and activities that are based on rigorous, systematic, and objective research that is scientifically based." OJJDP has expanded the intent of these requirements to all programs funded by OJJDP, including the JABG. This performance measure tracks the extent to which OJJDP funds are used by grantees who implement programs that have been shown to prevent and/or reduce delinquency and associated negative outcomes.

Measure: Percent of program youth successfully completing program requirements (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:Examples of program requirements are: attendance at all program meetings; completion of mandated community service or payment of mandated restitution; or compliance in terms of attendance, behaviors and participation with program standards.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The JAIBG program purpose is to promote greater accountability among juvenile offenders and within the juvenile justice system by providing States and local communities with funds to develop or improve juvenile justice programs.

Evidence: HR 3, JAIBG Guidance Manual and numerous other JAIBG publications

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: It is difficult to determine the actual need because there is no single definition or measure of accountability in the juvenile justice system. For the juvenile offender, accountability means an assurance of facing individualized consequences (i.e., a system of graduated sanctions). For the juvenile justice system, accountability can include: better tracking of juveniles in the system, or innovative sentencing options, such as restitution and restorative sanctions. Under the most recent authorization, grant funds can support a 24 different juvenile justice activities.

Evidence: HR 3, JAIBG Guidance Manual, OJP Program Plan, JAIBG Bulletins and Fact sheets. Conference mark of HR 2215.

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The significance of JAIBG funding cannot be established because there is no way to measure its impact. The grant funds are almost completely fungible with state and local resources. OJP contends the JAIBG is significant because juvenile programs are vulnerable to state and local budget cuts, but the program was created while state budgets were still expanding, and its current share of state and local juvenile justice funding is unknown.

Evidence: HR 3, JAIBG Guidance Manual

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: While JAIBG essentially duplicates state and local funding, it has two claims to uniqueness. 1) There is no other Federal program focused on juvenile offender sanctions or accountability within the juvenile justice system. 2) States and local grantees are required to have Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalitions (JCECs), which must develop a crime enforcement plan for allocating of funds. JCECs may have representatives from law enforcement, prosecutor, State or local probation services, juvenile court, schools, business and religious affiliated, fraternal, nonprofit, or social service organizations.

Evidence: OJJDP Program Plan, JAIBG Guidance Manual, HR 3

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: A block grant is probably the best means of equitably distributing funds for this purpose, given the wide variation in state juvenile justice systems. Each State's formula is based on juvenile population (under age 18). Each State distributes 75% of its funds to local governments, unless it receives a waiver due to having primary financial responsibility for juvenile justice. The lack of clear authority to require performance data or real improvements in accountability is a significant design flaws.

Evidence: HR3, JAIBG Guidance Manual

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: OJP is in the process of establishing long-term goals and objectives, such as "reduce juvenile offending through accountability-based programs focused on both the offender and on the juvenile justice system" and "ensure that States are addressing one or more of the 12 purpose areas and receiving information on best practices from OJJDP." However specific performance targets for individual and/or community outcomes are still being developed.

Evidence: Goals, objectives and measures are derived from HR3 and will be incorporated into the FY 2003 JAIBG application and revised JAIBG Guidance Manual.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: At present, the JAIBG has no annual performance measures (other than the number of grants awarded etc.) and grantees have not been required to submit any performance data. OJJDP hopes to develop measures based on the required State Juvenile Crime Enforcement Plans, as well as community-based measures linked to progress towards long-term goals.

Evidence: JAIBG and Formula Grants conferences, Progress reports, monitoring reports and technical assistance provider reports

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: In the past, all program partners have made nominal commitments to improved "accountability" but were not required to demonstrate improvements. While the JAIBG program goals, objectives and measures are being refined by OJP, program partners have not yet been apprised of these changes.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: OJJDP encourages, via training national and regional conferences, on-site visits and technical assistance, that the JAIBG program be incorporated into the Three-Year Plan and Plan Updates submitted by States in order to receive Title II--Formula Block Grants Program funding. These plans describe how funds (federal and State) will be used to address state juvenile justice issues. The State agency receiving JAIBG grants usually manages other federal juvenile grants, allowing it to better leverage. The mandated Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalitions also help coordinate state and local enforcement plans.

Evidence: Title II Formula Block Grants Program Three Year Plan and Plan Updates.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: The JAIBG authorization allows 3% of funds to be used for research, evaluation, and program development. A process evaluation was funded when grants were first awarded to states in FY99, but will not be completed until December 2002. OJJDP hopes it will provide information on States' use of program funds, and will use the results to better manage the program. OJJDP is collecting and analyzing data on the juvenile justice system, including youth in detention and corrections and new curriculum in juvenile corrections programs.

Evidence: Current study administered by NIJ, conducted by Abt Associates. Survey of Youth in Residential Placement; Department of Labor's Correctional Education Program.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: OJJDP cannot link funding levels and specific performance at this time. This is attributed to the program's underlying statute, which allows great flexibility in how funds are used and provides little leverage for demanding performance accountability. However, OJP does not believe additional statutory authority is required to address these problems.

Evidence: OJP Financial Guide

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OJJDP held a focus group with State JAIBG program managers to discuss strengthening the program. The JAIBG Guidance Manual will be revised in October 2002 to require more performance data from grantees. At the Spring 2003 JAIBG conference, OJJDP will engage grantees on the program's long-term goals and direction. OJJDP also points to improvements in training and technical assistance, but their link to strategic planning is unclear.

Evidence: JAIBG Focus Group; 2003 JAIBG Guidance Manual; FY 2003 JAIBG Application; and JAIBG Bulletins and Fact sheets

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Grantees are required to submit semiannual progress reports on project implementation and performance. However there is not a consistent reporting framework, as each grantee may select their own performance measures or no measures at all. OJJDP plans to require new program-level measures to be included in future progress reports.

Evidence: State JCEC Plan; Categorical Assistance progress reports, Follow-Up Information Forms

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: While OJJDP managers are held accountable for ensuring that grantees follow statutory requirements and program guidelines, the lack of performances measures and long-term goals means there is no standard to which either program managers or grantees are held.

Evidence: JAIBG Special Conditions, JAIBG Guidance Manual, OJP Financial Management Guide, and monitoring reports

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: OJJDP awards grants in a timely manner. In FY02, JAIBG applications were processed much earlier than in the past years. This process is being moved up again for FY03. Through the use of the Follow-Up Information Form, OJJDP can track how funds are allocated across JAIBG purpose areas. Almost 10% of the initial FY98 JAIBG funds have been deobligated because grantees did not use them within the grant period. Under the statute, States are required to repay any unexpended funds after 2 years. FY98 was the program's first year, and many grantees were unable to use their funds within this time frame.

Evidence: FY 2002 JAIBG application; FY 2002 JAIBG grant awards; JAIBG special conditions; Follow-Up Information Forms; Progress Reports; and OJP Financial Management Guide.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Starting in FY02, the program is using the OJP Grants Management System (GMS) to approve and process grants. GMS provides automated support in managing the application for and approval of federal resources administered by OJP. However, no procedures or incentives specific to the JAIBG program have been identified.

Evidence: OJP GMS System; JAIBG Application and grant awards

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The total administrative costs for the program ($6.8 million in FY02, and $3.2 million in FY03) are included in the appropriation. This amount supports central OJP support costs, such as payroll and grants management. The portion allocated to OJP is based on a fixed percentage (2%) of net JAIBG funds In this way, the funding level reflects the full costs of achieving the program goals. The FY04 submission to OMB includes all indirect costs for OJP. While this program does budget for its full operating costs, it receives a 'no' because of the lack of performance measures.

Evidence: JAIBG was assessed a carve-out of $6.835 million in FY 2002. This amount was reduced to $3.2 million due to exclusion of ChildSafe funds from the block grant total.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: JAIBG, like all other programs at OJP, is subject to the rules and guidelines of the OJP Financial Guide, which has the primary focus of ensuring that grant recipients use funds for the intended purposes and comply with all applicable standards. This is primarily monitored through the audit process, though other checks include the quarterly financial statements required by the Comptroller before the grantees are permitted to draw down funds

Evidence: OJP Financial Management Guide.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: OJJDP held a focus group with State JAIBG program managers to discuss strengthening the program. As result, the JAIBG Guidance Manual will be revised in October 2002 and the FY03 application kit will revised accordingly. A recent needs assessment of State coordinators provided useful information for improving training events and grant administration, and JAIBG believes that additional grantee training address other program deficiencies.

Evidence: JAIBG Focus Group; 2003 JAIBG Guidance Manual; FY 2003 JAIBG Application; and JAIBG Bulletins and Factsheets

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: OJJDP staff visited 45 grantees and subgrantees in FY01, during which they interviewed staff on management/monitoring practices and reviewed program files. OJJDP staff also meet with grantees during conferences to discuss implementation and performance. The grantees also submit semi-annual progress reports and follow-up forms on funding allocations.

Evidence: Programmatic Site Visit Reports, Categorical Assistance Progress Reports; and Follow-Up Information Forms.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The JAIBG authorizing legislation does not require performance data to be collected; and States do not provide such data voluntarily. There is no system for disseminating or summarizing grantee progress reports. The OJJDP website provides JAIBG program information with links to training and technical assistance information. Information about JAIBG is also published in the OJJDP Annual Report.

Evidence: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org and www.dsgonline.com

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: There is no data to demonstrate progress towards the program's unspecified long-term goals.

Evidence: JAIBG State Plans and Progress Reports.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: OJJDP's hopes to make JAIBG's annual performance measures more outcome based and tied to long-term goals. Listed below are previous output measures.

Evidence: JAIBG GPRA Chart FY 02.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Grants Management System (GMS) enabled OJJDP to modify the review process and award the grants 4 months earlier in FY 2002.

Evidence: OJP GMS System; JAIBG Application and grant awards

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While OJJDP believes this question is not applicable given JAIBG's unique focus on sanctions, the ultimate purpose of JAIBG is to reduce juvenile crime and recidivism. Accordingly, it is somewhat comparable to juvenile crime prevention programs administered by OJJDP and other agencies. While these other programs may have difficulties in evaluating performance, JAIBG's compares poorly due to the lack of clear goals or performance measures at this time.

Evidence:  

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: As explained in the response to II5, results are not yet available from the first process evaluation of the JAIBG program, which was initiated the same year that funds were initially awarded to the states. Additionally, OJJDP is currently developing an impact evaluation for the JAIBG program.

Evidence: