Delinquency Prevention Program Guideline

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) published a proposed guideline for the Title V Delinquency

Prevention Program on February 11, 1994, and solicited public comments.

Based on the analysis of those public comments, OJJDP is issuing this

final guideline. This Program is of interest to all Federal, State,

local, and private organizations involved with prevention planning and

services for children, youth and families.

DATES: This final guideline is effective on August 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Room

742, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20531

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Steiner, Social Science

Program Specialist, State Relations and Assistance Division, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at the above address.

Telephone (202) 307-5924.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Section 504(1) of the JJDP Act directs OJJDP

to issue ``such rules as are appropriate and necessary to carry out''

the Title V--Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs.

Changes to Proposed Guideline

The following changes are made to the proposed guideline. New

language is italicized.

Throughout the guideline, references to ``units of local

government'' are changed to ``units of general local government.''

The following sentence is added to the last paragraph under ``Local

Subgrantee Qualifications'': State Advisory Groups may not arbitrarily

exclude an eligible unit of general local government from competing for

Title V funds.

Under ``Application Requirements for State Agencies,'' the first

sentence is amended as follows: State agencies must provide evidence of

the State Advisory Group's authority to approve the award of Title V

subgrants or, where a separate supervisory board is vested with such

authority, to review and recommend approval to the board. No Title V

subgrants can be made to a unit of general local government absent the

approval or recommendation of the State Advisory Group.

Under ``Application Requirements for State Agencies,'' the

following paragraph is inserted after the fifth paragraph of that

section: The application must include a time-task plan providing a

description of the major tasks which the State will employ to implement

the Title V program, and the timeframes for completing each of those

tasks.

Under ``Application Requirements for State Agencies'' the fourth

paragraph is amended as follows: 2. To monitor and assure the audit of

subgrants for performance, outcome, and fiscal integrity, including

cash and in-kind match, as specified in the current edition of the

Office of Justice Programs Guideline Manual M-7100, ``Financial and

Administrative Guide for Grants.''

The first sentence under ``Process for Subgrant Award and

Administration'' is amended to read: State agency grantees shall use

essentially the same process for making Title V subawards as that used

for the Formula Grant awards, with the State Advisory Group

establishing applicant eligibility criteria to target specific types of

communities, if needed, and making or recommending the final decision

on funding individual applications.

Under ``Application Process for Units of general local

government,'' subsection 3. ``Local Three-Year Delinquency Prevention

Plan,'' the following sentence is inserted between the second and third

sentence of the second paragraph of the subsection: The applicant

should also assure that the PPB, to the extent possible, contains one

or more members under the age of twenty-one, one or more parents or

guardians with children who have had contact or are at risk of having

contact with the juvenile justice system, and an overall membership

that generally reflects the racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of

the community's youth population.

Under the section titled ``Application Process for Units of General

Local Government,'' subsection 3. ``Local Three Year Delinquency

Prevention Plan,'' the eleventh paragraph (paragraph j.) is amended to

read: A description of how the PPB will provide general oversight for

developing the plan, approve the plan prior to submission to the State,

and make recommendations to the responsible local agency for the

distribution of funds and evaluation of funded activities.

Under the section titled ``Duration of Grants and Continuation

Funding,'' the following changes are made: (1) The following sentence

is stricken: Grants may be awarded for project periods of 12 to 36

months, with initial awards of up to one year. The following two

sentences replace the stricken sentence: OJJDP will award grants to

States for a project period beginning on the date of award and ending

on September 30, 1996. States will award grants to units of general

local government in annual increments covering not more than 12 months

each, with overall project periods of 12 to 36 months; and (2) in the

second sentence the word ``continuation'' is stricken and replaced with

Subsequent years'. At the end of that sentence, ``subsequent fiscal

years'' is stricken.

Background

A new program was authorized in the 1992 amendments to the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, (hereafter

``the Act'' or ``the JJDP Act'') in Title V, Sections 501-506,

``Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs Act.'' For

Fiscal Year 1994, Congress appropriated $13 million for initial

implementation of Title V.

Prevention has been one of the primary goals of the Act since its

enactment in 1974. The premise is that preventing delinquent behavior

is a much more cost-effective means of reducing juvenile crime than

attempting to rehabilitate adjudicated delinquents. Prevention is also

a much more cost-effective way to deal with juvenile delinquency. In

addition to reducing the human and financial losses caused by crime,

effective delinquency prevention also reduces the need for costly

juvenile justice system processing and adjudication. Each year,

juvenile courts handle approximately 1.4 million delinquency and status

offense cases, resulting in nearly 130,000 out-of-home placements. On

any given day, approximately 90,000 juveniles are held in juvenile

detention, correctional and shelter facilities. Nationally, nearly $2

billion a year is spent operating these facilities. The average annual

cost of confining a juvenile in a training school exceeds $45,000 in

many States. The cost for intensive, private residential treatment for

a serious juvenile offender can run as high as $100,000 per year. The

cost for construction of secure facilities for juveniles is currently

about $100,000 per bed.

In order to be eligible to fully participate in the Formula Grants

Program of the JJDP Act, States must develop and adhere to policies,

practices, and laws which deinstitutionalize status offenders and

nonoffenders, separate adults and juveniles held in secure

institutions, and eliminate the practice of detaining or confining

juveniles in adult jails and lockups. In addition, States must address

efforts to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority

juveniles in secure facilities, where such condition exists. These four

goals (deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separation, jail

removal, and disproportionate minority confinement) are commonly called

the Formula Grants Program ``mandates,'' and are a major focus of

States' Federally funded efforts under the Act. In order to meet

statutory requirements for compliance, approximately 70% of the States

at one time or another have devoted 100% of all available formula grant

funds toward meeting the mandates. Thus, many States have been limited

in the amount of JJDP Act funds that could be devoted to prevention.

Title V of the JJDP Act is designed to provide a dedicated fund

source for States to award grants for delinquency prevention and early

intervention programs for local communities, provided that the

applicant unit of general local government, or combination thereof, is

in compliance with the JJDP Act mandates.

Congress has structured the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program

to support such units that have formulated a community-wide strategy to

address the prevention of delinquency. A community will be required to

have a prevention strategy based on assessment of risk factors

associated with the development of delinquent behavior in the

community's children.

Title V authorizes the Administrator of OJJDP to make grants to a

State, to be transmitted through the State Advisory Group, to units of

general local government for delinquency prevention programming. The

State agency which administers the JJDP Act Formula Grant in each State

will be eligible to apply for funding and receive an amount determined

by a formula based on the State's population of youth under the maximum

age of original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction, with a minimum

allocation of $75,000 per State and $25,000 per Territory.

States will invite units of general local government that meet the

statutorily mandated eligibility requirements, and as further limited

by the State Advisory Group, to apply for funding. In order to be

eligible, local applicants must: (1) Be certified by the State Advisory

Group to be in compliance with the JJDP Act Formula Grants mandates;

(2) designate or convene a local Prevention Policy Board; and (3)

develop a local, comprehensive delinquency prevention plan.

Approach

Many past delinquency prevention planning and programming efforts,

while well intentioned, have been unsuccessful because of their

negative focus on attempting to prevent juveniles from misbehaving.

Another weakness of past delinquency prevention efforts is their narrow

scope, generally focussing on only one or two aspects of a child's life

such as individual behaviors or family problems. Successful delinquency

prevention strategies must be positive in their orientation and

comprehensive in their scope.

Positive approaches that emphasize opportunities for healthy

social, physical and mental development and take into account

individual, family, peer group, school, and community influences on a

child's development have been shown to have a much greater likelihood

of success.

Risk-focused delinquency prevention is a comprehensive approach

based on the premise that in order to prevent a problem from occurring,

the factors that contribute to the development of that problem must be

identified and addressed.

Research conducted over the past half century has clearly

documented five categories of risk factors for juvenile delinquency:

(1) Individual characteristics such as alienation, rebelliousness and

lack of bonding to society; (2) family influences such as parental

conflict, child abuse, poor family management practices, and family

history of problem behavior (substance abuse, criminality, teen

pregnancy, and school dropouts); (3) school experiences such as early

academic failure and lack of commitment to school; (4) peer group

influences such as friends who engage in problem behavior (minor

criminality, drugs, gangs and violence); and (5) neighborhood and

community factors such as economic deprivation, high rates of substance

abuse and crime, and neighborhood disorganization.

To counter these risk factors, protective factors must be

introduced. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that

moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk. Research indicates that

protective factors fall into three basic categories: (1) Individual

characteristics such as a resilient temperament and a positive social

orientation; (2) bonding with pro-social family members, teachers,

adults, and friends; and (3) healthy beliefs and clear standards for

behavior. While individual characteristics are difficult to change,

bonding and clear standards for behavior work together and can be

changed. To increase bonding, children must be provided with: (1)

Opportunities to contribute to their family, school, peer group and

community; (2) skills to take advantage of opportunities; and (3)

recognition for efforts to contribute.

At the same time, parents, teachers and communities need to set

clear standards regarding pro-social behavior.

A risk-focused delinquency prevention approach calls on communities

to identify the risk factors to which their children are exposed.

Risked-focused delinquency prevention provides communities with a

conceptual framework for prioritizing the risk factors in their

community, assessing how their current resources are being used,

identifying resources which are needed, and choosing specific programs

and strategies that directly address those risk factors through the

enhancement of protective factors.

This approach requires a commitment by and participation of the

entire community in developing and implementing a comprehensive

strategy. While the roles of governmental agencies in this strategy

will vary, it is essential that the citizens of the community create a

diverse and representative coalition in which public officials and

agencies are equal members with private citizens and agencies. It is

this coalition which leads the community's prevention strategy in

addressing the needs of children and their families at risk.

Another key component of this approach is the coordination and use

of existing programs and resources. A community-wide prevention

strategy must inventory available State, local, private, and Federal

resources, and develop vehicles for making these resources and programs

readily accessible to children and families in need. Thus, applicants

for Title V funds are encouraged to coordinate this prevention effort

with other Federally funded efforts.

Target Population

The Title V Delinquency Prevention Program is based on a program

design which addresses those risk factors which are known to be

associated with delinquent behavior. The program seeks to address these

factors at the earliest appropriate stage in each child's development.

The target population is all at-risk children in a given community.

Funds awarded under this program will be used to address delinquency

risk-factors in communities, and as such may be used to fund

ameliorative services for at-risk children.

Funding Structure

Title V, Section 505 of the Act, authorizes the Administrator of

OJJDP to make grants to a State, to be transmitted through the State

Advisory Group, to units of general local government.

Technical Assistance

Because the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program is based on a

risk-focused program structure, OJJDP will make training and technical

assistance on risk-focused prevention available to representatives of

units of general local government through the State agency

administering the program.

Program Goal

The goal of this program is to reduce delinquency and youth

violence by supporting communities in providing their children,

families, neighborhoods, and institutions with the knowledge, skills,

and opportunities necessary to foster a healthy and nurturing

environment which supports the growth and development of productive and

responsible citizens.

Program Objectives

The objectives of the program are:

1. To form coalitions within communities to mobilize the community

and direct delinquency prevention efforts;

2. To identify those known delinquency risk factors which are

present in communities;

3. To identify protective factors which will counteract identified

risk factors, and develop local comprehensive, delinquency prevention

plans to strengthen these protective factors;

4. To develop local comprehensive, delinquency prevention

strategies which use and coordinate Federal, State, local and private

resources for establishing a client-centered continuum of services for

at-risk children and their families;

5. To implement the delinquency prevention strategies, monitor

their progress, and modify the plans as needed.

Basic Program Design

The program will be implemented in two phases: the pre-award

planning phase and the implementation phase. Applicant units of general

local government may modify or enhance existing prevention planning

boards, plans and strategies to meet the requirements for Title V

funding.

Planning Phase

The planning phase for each local applicant will occur prior to

the award of funds and consist of the designation or formation of a

local policy board to direct the project, and the development of a

three-year delinquency prevention plan. OJJDP is making training and

technical assistance available through the State agency to interested

potential local applicants during this phase. Eligible State agencies

may apply for and receive Title V awards from OJJDP based on this final

Title V Guideline.

Implementation Phase

The implementation phase will begin with the award of subgrants to

units of general local government. Technical assistance will continue

to be available to grantees.

Funding Structure and Grantee Qualifications

Title V authorizes the Administrator of OJJDP to make grants to

States to be transmitted through the State Advisory Groups to qualified

units of general local government or combinations thereof. The State

Advisory Group is the board appointed by the chief executive officer of

the State, as provided by Section 223(a)(3) of the Act (Section 503). A

unit of general local government means any city, county, town, borough,

parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a

State, and any Indian tribe which performs law enforcement functions as

determined by the Secretary of the Interior. . . (Section 103(8)).

OJJDP will award grants to States based on a formula determined by

each State's relative population of youth below the maximum age limit

for original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction. The States will

subgrant the funds to qualified units of general local government based

on a competitive process. Jurisdictions that do not have discrete units

of general local government may award funds directly to governmental

agencies or private nonprofit organizations to implement projects in

furtherance of the jurisdiction's own comprehensive prevention

strategy.

All Title V funds must be matched by recipient units of general

local government or by the State with 50% of the amount of the grant.

This match may be provided in cash or the value of in-kind

contributions or services. States are encouraged to supplement Title V

funds with Formula Grant funds. However, Formula Grant funds cannot be

used as match for Title V funds.

State Grantee Qualifications

Each State, as defined in Section 103(7) of the Act, is eligible to

apply for Title V funds, provided that it has a State agency designated

by the chief executive under Section 299(c) of the Act, and a State

Advisory Group appointed pursuant to Section 223(a)(3) of the Act. The

applicant State agency must provide an assurance that the State

Advisory Group has or will have the sole authority, consistent with

State law or policy, to approve or recommend approval of Title V

subgrants to units of general local government, pursuant to the

provisions of this program guideline.

Local Subgrantee Qualifications

In order for a unit of general local government to be eligible to

apply for Title V funds, such unit, or each unit applying in

combination, must be certified by the State Advisory Group as in

compliance with Sections 223(a)(12)(A), 223(a)(13), 223(a)(14), and

233(a)(23) of the JJDP Act. If a State is not currently in full

compliance with any of the first three of these mandates, i.e. the

quantifiable mandates, or is in full compliance with de minimis

exceptions, only those units of general local government which are

within the de minimis parameters provided in 28 CFR 31.303(f)(6)(i) and

(f)(6)(iii)(A), based on the locality's most current census data, may

be deemed in compliance with the mandates of Sections 223(a)(12)(A),

(13), and (14).

In order to be in compliance with Section 223(a)(23), the State

Advisory Group must certify that the unit of general local government

is cooperating in data gathering and analysis to determine if

disproportionate minority confinement exists, or if it is known to

exist within the boundaries or jurisdiction of the unit of general

local government, the unit has made or is making an adequate effort

toward addressing, or assisting the State to address, this issue.

The State Advisory Group will competitively award, or recommend for

award, Title V grants to units of general local government based on how

well competing units meet the competitive criteria set forth below

under Priority Consideration for Funding. State Advisory Groups may not

arbitrarily exclude an eligible unit of general local government from

competing for Title V funds.

Application Process--Eligible State Agencies

All State agencies designated by the chief executive under Section

299(c) of the Act are eligible to apply for Title V funds. A list of

these agencies and the allocations of funds to the State for a

particular fiscal year may be obtained from OJJDP.

Application Requirements for State Agencies

State agencies must provide evidence of the State Advisory Group's

authority to approve the award of Title V subgrants or, where a

separate supervisory board is vested with such authority, to review and

recommend approval to the board. No Title V subgrants can be made to a

unit of general local government absent the approval or recommendation

of the State Advisory Group. Examples of such authority would be an

executive order, a statute, a formal resolution of the State Advisory

Group, a formal resolution of the supervisory board which the State

Advisory Group advises, or a written agreement between the State agency

and the State Advisory Group.

The application must also include an assurance that the State

Advisory Group and the State agency will establish written subgrantee

eligibility criteria, described above under Local Subgrantee

Qualifications, and competitive criteria based on the criteria

described below under Priority Consideration for Funding. The State may

issue additional criteria, including criteria designed to focus

delinquency prevention efforts toward those areas of the State

displaying the greatest need of comprehensive delinquency prevention

planning and programs.

Furthermore, the application must provide the following

administrative assurances:

1. To report on all subgrant awards, within thirty days of award,

on the OJJDP form, ``Individual Project Report, Part I: Initial Report

of Funding'';

2. To monitor and assure the audit of subgrants for performance,

outcome and fiscal integrity, including cash and in-kind match, as

specified in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs

Guideline Manual M-7100, ``Financial and Administrative Guide for

Grants'';

3. To collect quarterly progress and data reports, and forward

semi-annual summary reports to OJJDP.

The application must include a time-task plan providing a

description of the major tasks which the State will employ to implement

the Title V program, and the timeframes for completing each of those

tasks.

All awards will be conditioned with additional requirements which

are standard for recipients of Federal grants.

State agencies which demonstrate a need to do so in their

applications to OJJDP, may use up to 5% of the State's Title V

allocation for the costs of administering the Title V subgrants and

support for State Advisory Group activities related to Title V. A

budget narrative must explain how the administrative funds will be

spent, including provision of the required match by the State.

State Application Deadline

State applications are due to OJJDP not later than 60 days after

the effective date of this guideline.

Technical Assistance Role of State Agency and State Advisory Group:

In their capacities as the primary planning vehicles for juvenile

justice and delinquency prevention programs within the State, the State

agency and the State Advisory Group are encouraged to assume a role as

a technical assistance resource for local subgrantees, as well as

serving as a resource and information clearinghouse for all prevention

activities in the State. The data and strategies developed on the local

level should be incorporated in the State Advisory Group's and State

agency's statewide, comprehensive planning efforts, as required by

Section 223 of the Act. To this end, State agencies and State Advisory

Groups are strongly encouraged to participate in risk-focused

prevention training and technical assistance made available by OJJDP.

Process for Subgrant Award and Administration

State agency grantees shall use essentially the same process for

making Title V subawards as that used for Formula Grant awards, with

the State Advisory Group establishing applicant eligibility criteria to

target specific types of communities, if needed, and making or

recommending the final decision on funding of individual applications.

This includes the Request for Proposals, competitive review of

applications, and award of subgrants. Likewise, State agencies will

monitor Title V subgrants in a similar manner as the Formula Grant

subgrants, including the collection and reporting of data required by

this program guideline.

In considering applications for awards, State Advisory Groups

should be sensitive to the unique needs of rural areas and Native

American tribes, including provision of special consideration in the

competitive process.

All subgrants should be awarded within 180 days after receipt of

the award from OJJDP.

Application Process for Units of General Local Government

1. Pre-application Certification of JJDP Act Compliance

Units of general local government must obtain a certification of

compliance from the State Advisory Group prior to applying for an award

of funds.

2. Delinquency Prevention Training

OJJDP is making training in risk-focused prevention available to 45

sites across the nation during fiscal year 1994. The only cost

associated with this training for participants will be transportation

and lodging, if necessary. Facilities for the training will be provided

by the States or localities. Training is designed to assist communities

in preparing the three year plans required for Title V funding. The

initial training will consist of a one day introduction to the theories

and strategies of risk-focused prevention planning. Units of general

local government considering applying for Title V funding are strongly

urged to take advantage of this training opportunity and send key

community leaders to the initial training. A subsequent three day

workshop will be held for planning teams from local Prevention Policy

Boards to complete a risk and resource assessment. OJJDP has advised

the State agencies on the process for units of general local government

to participate in this training.

3. Local Three-Year Delinquency Prevention Plan

Each unit of general local government's application to the State

agency must include a three-year plan describing the extent of risk

factors identified in the community and how these risk factors will be

addressed. A written explanation of the risk factors and protective

factors can be obtained from the State agency grantee. The plan must,

at a minimum, contain the following elements:

a. The designation or formation of a local Prevention Policy Board

(PPB) consisting of no fewer than 15 and no more than 21 members from

the community, representing a balance of public agencies, private

nonprofit organizations serving children, youth, and families, and

business and industry. Such agencies and organizations may include

education, health and mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare,

employment, parent, family, and youth associations, law enforcement,

religion, recreation, child protective services, public defenders,

prosecutors, and private manufacturing and service sectors. The

applicant should also assure that the PPB, to the extent possible,

contains one or more members under the age of twenty-one, one or more

parents or guardians with children who have had contact or are at risk

of having contact with the juvenile justice system, and an overall

membership that generally reflects the racial, ethnic, and cultural

composition of the community's youth population. A specific local

agency or entity must have responsibility for support of the PPB;

b. Evidence of commitment of key community leaders to supporting a

comprehensive, delinquency prevention effort. Key leaders may include

public and private individuals in key leadership and policy positions

who are instrumental in effecting policy changes, controlling

resources, and mobilizing the community;

c. Definition of the boundaries of the program's neighborhood or

community;

d. An assessment of the readiness of the community or neighborhood

to adopt a comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy;

e. An assessment of the prevalence of specific, identified

delinquency risk factors in the community, including the establishment

of baseline data for the risk factors. The assessment of risk factors

must result in a list of priority risk factors to be addressed, as

determined and approved by the PPB;

f. Identification of available resources and promising approaches,

including Federal, State, local, and private, and a description of how

they address identified risk factors, and an assessment of gaps in

needed resources and a description of how to address them;

g. A strategy, including goals, objectives, and a timetable, for

mobilizing the community to assume responsibility for delinquency

prevention. This should include ways of involving the private nonprofit

and business sectors in delinquency prevention activities;

h. A strategy, including goals, objectives, and a timetable, for

obtaining and coordinating identified resources which will implement

the promising approaches that address the priority risk factors. This

strategy must include a plan for the coordination of services for at-

risk youth and their families;

i. A description of how awarded funds and matching resources will

be used to accomplish stated goals and objectives by purchasing of

services and goods and leveraging other resources. This should include

a budget which lists planned expenditures;

j. A description of how the PPB will provide general oversight for

developing the plan, approve the plan prior to submission to the State,

and make recommendations to the responsible local agency for the

distribution of funds and evaluation of funded activities;

k. A plan for collecting data for the measurement of performance

and outcome of project activities.

Priority Consideration for Funding

Only local government applicants certified by the State Advisory

Group as in compliance with the mandates of the Act, that have convened

a PPB, and have submitted a three year plan will be eligible for

funding. In considering applications for funding, State Advisory Groups

will give priority to eligible applicants which:

a. Provide a thorough assessment of risk factors and resources,

including the quantified measurement of the risk factors which will

serve as the baseline for determining project performance and outcome;

b. Identify key community leaders and members of the PPB, describe

their roles in the comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy, and

provide evidence of key community leaders support;

c. Clearly define the boundaries of the program's neighborhood or

community;

d. Provide a realistic assessment, including evidence, of the

readiness of the community or neighborhood to adopt a comprehensive

delinquency prevention strategy;

e. Provide a coherent plan, including realistic goals and

objectives, to mobilize the community and implement a strategy that

will address priority risk factors, including innovative ways of

involving the private nonprofit and business sectors in delinquency

prevention activities;

f. Provide specific strategies for service and agency coordination,

including collocation of services at sites readily accessible to

children and families in need;

g. Provide a strategy for or evidence of collaborating with other

units of local of government and State agencies to develop or enhance a

statewide subsidy program to local governments that is dedicated to

early intervention and delinquency prevention;

h. Provide a budget outlining the planned expenditures of grant

funds and matching resources, including a budget narrative justifying

these expenditures;

i. Provide a sound plan for collecting data for measuring

performance and outcome;

j. Provide written statements of commitment from State or local

public agencies to match in cash or kind, at least 50% of the funds

awarded.

Local Application Deadline

The State Advisory Group will determine the application deadline.

However, all local subgrant awards should be made within 180 days after

the date that the State agency was awarded Title V funds.

Local Grant Administrative Requirements

After receipt of the award, local grantees will provide all

required reports and data to the State agency, describing

implementation of the program. Technical assistance for program

implementation will be available upon request through the State agency.

Evaluation

OJJDP will collect and analyze data collected by each grantee for

the purpose of developing national summary reports on the performance

and outcome of the local prevention efforts. This evaluation will

examine performance in meeting stated objectives as well as the outcome

of the project's activities. In order for this evaluation to be

meaningful, it is essential that, to the greatest extent possible, the

local three year comprehensive delinquency prevention plans contain

quantified objectives and baseline measurements of the identified risk

factors.

Allocation of Title V Funds to States

The Title V Delinquency Prevention Program has a F.Y. 1994

appropriation of $13 million available for awards to States to support

programs of units of general local government. Allocations are

available to States based on the number of juveniles in the State who

are subject to original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction based

on State law, with a minimum allocation of $75,000 for States and the

District of Columbia and $25,000 for Territories and Possessions. A

list of the allocations for States is available from OJJDP. The

allocations for States not participating in this program in F.Y. 1994,

or subsequent years, will be withheld for use in F.Y. 1995, or

subsequent years, pursuant to the Title V Delinquency Prevention

Program guidelines issued for that year.

Size of Awards to Units of General Local Government

The size of the award to each unit of general local government, or

combination thereof, and the total number of awards will be determined

by the State Advisory Group, based upon the amount of funds allocated

to the State and the quality of the local three-year prevention plans.

Duration of Grants and Continuation Funding

OJJDP will award grants to States for a project period beginning on

the date of award and ending on September 30, 1996. States will award

grants to units of general local government in annual increments

covering not more than 12 months each, with overall project periods of

12 to 36 months. Subsequent years' funding will be contingent upon

satisfactory performance and the availability of funds. Future funding

is dependent upon Congressional action.

Restrictions on Uses of Funds: Title V funds cannot be used for

construction, land acquisition, or supplantation of Federal, State, or

local funds supporting existing programs or activities.

Responses to Public Comments

Twenty-seven comments to the proposed guideline were received. A

summary of the comments and OJJDP's responses follow. In many

instances, the summary comments listed below incorporate specific

comments from more than one respondent.

Comment. The guideline appears to focus on risk factors and

reducing delinquency without providing adequate emphasis to protective

factors and positive youth outcomes. A prevention approach which is

protection focused or risk and protection focused seems more in line

with OJJDP's strategy.

Response. The structure of the Title V program is based on

identifying risk factors that can lead to the development of

delinquency and violence in children and youth, and developing

strategies to eliminate or ameliorate the risk factors. A key component

of this strategy is to provide the protective factors which serve to

buffer children and youth from the damaging effects of risk factors.

To better express this strategy, the Title V program will be

referred to as a risk and protection focused strategy.

Comment. The guideline should refer to children and youth, and

emphasis should go to youth eleven years and older, since this

population most often lacks positive alternatives in their communities.

What age is the program targeting? Would programs for parenting

skills and early infant bonding be appropriate? The program needs to

place more emphasis on parental responsibility and skills training.

Response. The guideline states that ``the program seeks to address

these (risk) factors at the earliest appropriate stage in each child's

development.'' The Title V program is structured to accommodate what

each individual community has identified as the best strategy to reduce

risk factors and increase protective factors. For some communities this

may require emphasizing the ages of zero to three, for others it may

mean eleven years and older, and in others it may require a focus on

adolescents.

Comment. The clear thrust of the proposed guideline is toward

primary prevention. Given the increasing emphasis on primary and

secondary prevention in funding proposals now before Congress, OJJDP

should make clear in the final guideline that in communities where the

greatest need is for tertiary program, those communities are also

encouraged to apply for these funds.

Response. OJJDP formulated the Title V program based on a risk and

protection focused strategy. This decision was based on OJJDP's

research and demonstration program experience, as well as the

provisions of Title V. While the risk and protection focused strategy

stresses secondary prevention, the comprehensive planning process

employed by communities may also yield tertiary and primary prevention

programs.

The three levels of prevention (primary, secondary, and tertiary)

usually overlap to some degree, especially in a risk and protection

focused strategy such as that employed in the Title V program. The risk

and protection focus of the strategy analyzes and addresses the root

causes of problem behavior and violence which can affect all children

(primary prevention), including those who have been identified as at-

risk (secondary prevention), and those who have committed offenses and

have been referred to the juvenile justice system (tertiary

prevention).

Section 505(a) under Title V states that grants may be used for

``delinquency prevention programs and activities for youth who have had

or are likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system,

including the provision to children, youth and families of: (1)

Recreation services; (2) tutoring and remedial education; (3)

assistance in the development of work skills; (4) child and adolescent

health and mental health services; (5) alcohol and substance abuse

prevention services; (6) leadership development activities; and (7) the

teaching that people are and should be held accountable for their

actions.'' Information and technical assistance on these and other

prevention programs and strategies are available from OJJDP.

Comment. Gender-specific services should be part of every

community's comprehensive strategy.

Response. Through the risk and resource assessment, each community

will have an opportunity to analyze service gaps and address those gaps

with programs and strategies which have had positive or promising

results. OJJDP is making technical assistance and training available to

States and localities who would like to enhance their assessment skills

in analyzing service gaps.

Comment. The guideline should list attention deficit disorder and

lack of support for parents with children with disabilities as risk

factors.

Response. The risk factors cited in the training that OJJDP is

providing for potential Title V applicants includes three school

related factors: Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior, Academic

Failure in Elementary School, and Lack of Commitment to School.

Learning disabilities can be related to each of these risk factors.

Comment. A sixth program objective should be added which focuses on

methodology. This would provide a basis for improving professional

practice within and among the organizations working with youth.

Response. Although the guideline does not require a specific

methodology for planning or programming, it does provide general

guidance on methodology along the lines of a risk and protection

focused strategy. The training and technical assistance that is

available through OJJDP provides a means of improving professional

practice.

Comment. Will private non-profit agencies have difficulty in being

subgranted funds if a local unit of government does not wish to apply

but does wish to participate?

Response. Section 505(a) under Title V of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) authorizes the Administrator to

``make grants to a State, to be transmitted through the State Advisory

Group, to units of general local government * * *'' The only means by

which private non-profit organizations can receive Title V funds would

be through service contracts with units of general local government.

Comment. Are school districts eligible to apply for Title V funds?

Response. Section 503 of the JJDP Act provides for only units of

general local government to be the applicants for Title V funds. A

school district is not a unit of general local government.

The proposed guideline did not consistently use the term ``unit of

general local government.'' The final guideline is amended to use this

term consistently.

Comment. The guideline appears to grant sole authority to award

grants to the State Advisory Group. How will the awards be made if

State statute does not grant the State Advisory Group such authority?

If the Governor signs the grant, must the State Advisory Group approve

the award?

Response. The guideline, under ``State Grantee Qualifications,''

has been revised to require the State agency applicant to provide an

assurance that the State Advisory Group has the sole authority,

consistent with State law or policy, to approve or recommend the award

of Title V subgrants.

Comment. Can private not-for-profit organizations participate in

public-private partnerships with operational prevention coalitions?

Response. Under the Title V program, a unit of general local

government could vest a public-private organization with significant

responsibility for implementation of the program. However, the local

government would still be responsible to the State for administering

any Title V funds.

Comment. Municipalities with populations in excess of 3 million

should be eligible to receive grants directly from OJJDP.

Response. Section 505 of the JJDP Act authorizes the Administrator

to ``make grants to a State, to be transmitted through the State

Advisory Group to units of general local government.''

Comment. The formula for allocating funds to States should be

amended to include all youth up to 18 years of age, regardless of the

maximum age of original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction.

Response. Because a community can only prevent delinquency in a

juvenile who is subject to a juvenile court's delinquency jurisdiction,

the most logical and appropriate means for allocating Title V funds is

to use a formula determined by each State's relative population of

youth below the age limit for original juvenile court delinquency

jurisdiction.

Comment. Regional plans for Title V should be permitted.

Response. The guideline allows for combinations of units of general

local government to apply for Title V funds. However, the regional plan

which is the product by such a regional collaboration must define the

boundaries of the target neighborhoods or communities.

Comment. States will be implementing the Title V program using

varying timetables and strategies. OJJDP should require the States'

applications to include a time-task plan.

Response. This requirement has been added Under ``Application

Requirements for State Agencies,'' in the guideline.

Comment. Four respondents indicated that the match requirement was

too onerous for small communities and private nonprofit organizations.

The respondents recommended that a reduced level of match be allowed.

Response. Title V requires that ``the unit or State has agreed to

provide a 50% match of the amount of the grant, including the value of

in-kind contributions, to fund the activity.'' (Section 505(b)(7)).

This provision provides some flexibility in the match requirement.

First, the match, which is 50 cents on the dollar, has to be made for

every dollar granted to the local level. However, the State can provide

a portion of the funding through State program dollars. Second, the

match can be made in cash or in-kind. In-kind match is discussed in a

separate response.

It should be noted that the Title V provision does not require a

match from any agency other than the State or the unit of general local

government. It is the responsibility of the unit of general local

government to provide the match, not nonprofit service providers.

Comment. Two respondents recommended that in certain instances, the

match requirement should exclude in-kind match and require a cash match

only.

Response. Congress intended the in-kind match provision to allow

flexibility in providing local resources. Although the in-kind match

provision may require more diligence on the part of the State in

assuring that the match requirement is met, the State cannot restrict

the match to cash because this is a benefit provided to local

recipients by statute.

Comment. The guideline should require that local applications

provide formal interagency agreements which promote ``contractual''

agreements vs. ``intentional'' agreements.

Response. The guideline allows for statements of commitment in

order to give the State flexibility in determining what form those

statements of commitment should take. Given the timeframes for the

planning process in the guideline, it may not be possible for a

locality to obtain formal interagency agreements prior to submission of

the plan.

Comment. Can the State Advisory Group limit the availability of

funds to a specific local government or a specific set of risk factors?

Response. The State Advisory Group and State agency may issue

funding guidelines which focus available funds on areas with the

greatest need. If a State chooses this approach, the award of funds is

to still be determined through a competitive process that solicits

proposals from areas which meet criteria established by the State

Advisory Group. It is possible that these criteria may result in a

limited number of units of general local government being eligible to

apply.

In targeting communities with particular needs for purposes of

soliciting proposals, the State Advisory Group may include specific

risk factors in the targeting criteria. However, applicants must still

analyze the incidence of all risk factors in their local comprehensive

plans.

The State Advisory Group and the State agency may not limit the

competition based solely on criteria which are not related to juvenile

crime or other indications of need. For example, the State Advisory

Group may not limit competition to particular communities based solely

on population size. To do so would result in the arbitrary exclusion of

communities from competition in the Title V program. The guideline is

revised under ``Local Subgrantee Qualifications'' to reflect this

requirement.

Comment. The timeframes allowed in the guideline for the

development of local comprehensive plans are too restrictive,

especially if a locality does not have any available planning

resources. What happens if a local applicant cannot meet the 180 day

deadline? OJJDP should allow States to award the first and second year

of Title V funds through one RFP process after the new Federal fiscal

year.

Response. The guideline states that ``all subgrant awards should be

made within 180 days after receipt of the award from OJJDP.'' OJJDP

intends this 180 day timeframe to serve as a target date, particularly

in States where localities are developing their Title V prevention

plans on a base previously established through other risk-focused

prevention planning efforts. OJJDP recognizes that some States and

localities are new to prevention planning, and more time will be

required to develop comprehensive three year plans. OJJDP is providing

technical assistance and training to States and localities to enhance

their ability to implement the Title V program in the most expeditious

manner possible without sacrificing quality.

Comment. The guideline suggests that Title V funds should be used

in conjunction with the JJDP Act Formula Grant funds. The time frame

for these two planning cycles do not coincide.

Response. Title V requires three year local plans and the Formula

Grant requires three year State plans. OJJDP encourages the State

Advisory Groups and State agencies to develop a mechanism whereby the

local plans can be integrated in the State plan.

The proposed guideline, under ``Duration of Grants and Continuation

Funding'' has been revised to more accurately describe the grant award

process by providing that ``OJJDP will award grants to States for a

project period beginning on the date of award and ending on September

30, 1996. States will award grants to units of general local government

in annual increments covering not more than 12 months each, with

overall project periods of 12 to 36 months.''

Comment. Will Title V funds be available in to States in future

years?

Response. OJJDP will make future years' Title V funds available to

States and localities through the process described in the guideline,

pending satisfactory performance and availability of funds. OJJDP will

determine satisfactory performance of State grantees and the States

will determine satisfactory performance of local grantees.

Comment. The Title V program should be coordinated with other

similar Federal programs, such as the Family Preservation Act.

The guideline should require local applicants to document

collaboration with other Federal programs.

Response. OJJDP strongly encourages coordination with other

Federal, State and local programs. OJJDP is working with the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services to establish mechanisms to

facilitate coordination with the Family Preservation and Support

Services provision and other programs which use a community coalition

planning approach to prevention. In addition, OJJDP will provide

technical assistance and training to States and localities on accessing

and collaborating with other Federal programs.

The guideline indicates that a ``key component of the prevention

approach is the coordination and use of existing resources.'' The

guideline encourages applicants to coordinate this effort with other

Federally funded programs.

Comment. Who signs the local application? The highest elected local

official?

Response. The local application may be signed by any official

authorized to do so by the applicant unit of general local government.

Comment. Can a county, and municipalities within a county, both be

eligible to apply?

Response. Yes, provided that funding is contingent upon

coordination of the respective plans.

Comment. Can Title II, Part B Formula Grant funds be used to help

localities develop local plans?

Response. Yes. The use of Formula Grant program funds for the

development of local delinquency prevention plans is a permissible

expenditure of these funds.

Comment. What if a local plan is missing one of the required

elements?

Response. The local plan must contain all the required elements

listed in the guideline before the locality can receive Title V funds.

Comment. It is not clear whether the funds can be used for service

delivery or planning.

Response. Title V funds are used for service delivery.

Comment. The guideline refers to the ``Communities that Care''

model of risk-focused prevention. Can grant recipients employ other

risk-focused prevention models?

Response. Yes. Localities may base their three year plan and

strategy on other delinquency prevention models, provided that they are

based on a risk and protection focused model that uses: (1) The

analysis of risk factors which are grounded in sound theory and

positive research results, and (2) protective factors which have a

sound theoretical basis and positive or promising research results.

OJJDP is offering training and TA on risk and protection focused

prevention which permits States and localities to use any risk and

protection focused model.

Comment. We interpret the Title V audit requirements to be

different than that of an A-128 audit.

Response. The provisions of OMB Circulars A-128 and A-133 apply to

Title V funds.

Comment. The guideline indicates project periods for local grants

of 12 to 36 months. It may be beneficial to allow for up to a 60 month

project period to facilitate the measurement of outcomes of the

projects.

Response. Title V is designed as a long term program. Based on the

experience of communities that are implementing prevention programs of

similar design, we anticipate that three to five years is not an

unreasonable time to expect a community coalition, such as the Title V

Prevention Policy Board, to establish itself as a viable organization

with the influence necessary to help effect system change.

In the proposed guideline, OJJDP has provided a 12-36 month

timeframe to provide flexibility for accommodating a wide range of

community planning and coalition building experience by local Title V

grant recipients. Some communities may only need a one year period to

augment on-going risk focused prevention activities. For other

communities, this may be their first attempt at this type of

comprehensive prevention planning and programs. In addition, this

timeframe will facilitate integrating the planning for Title V with

that of the Formula Grants program.

In general, the use of Title V funds is intended to provide an

incentive to plan and implement delinquency prevention programs at the

local level. States may wish to provide competitive Title II funding

for local prevention programs following Title V funding, and local

grantees can seek funds for expansion from a range of State, Federal,

and foundation sources.

The guideline requires the collection of performance and outcome

data. OJJDP encourages States and local grantees to continue collecting

this data for their prevention programs to measure outcomes beyond the

period of Title V funding. OJJDP is also planning to continue

collecting and analyzing data for selected jurisdictions through an on-

going national evaluation of Title V.

Comment. Funding formulas have favored urban over suburban

communities. The opportunity for equal programming throughout the State

would be most desirable or at least a funding formula created that

allows suburban communities to compete with like communities.

Response. Under the guideline, States have the discretion to target

those communities in the State with the greatest need. The judgment the

State Advisory Group can best determine whether to limit the

competition for the grants to specific, targeted communities or to

conduct a statewide competition. Given the limited amount of Title V

funds available to each State and the local competition requirements,

distribution of funds based on a population formula would not be

feasible. The State Advisory Group and State agency could, however,

conduct competitions among applicants of specific types of geographic

areas (urban, suburban, rural).

Comment. The guidelines should specifically prohibit or discourage

the withdrawal of community funds from agencies to provide the match

for Title V programs, especially in cases where collaborative efforts

between agencies and government would serve the same purpose and

clients.

Response. The guideline prohibits using Title V funds to supplant

Federal, State, or local funds supporting existing programs. The

guideline encourages collaboration of agencies and services. The

planning process for Title V is designed to produce a more effective,

efficient and responsive service system for children, youth and

families. The locality can best determine how to design, coordinate,

and fund programs to achieve this outcome, provided that the Title V

funds are not used to replace funds for existing programs.

Comment. The guideline requires a great deal of local planning

before localities can become eligible for funding. This provides little

incentive for many units of general local government to engage in such

efforts without a strong probability of being funded.

In order to reduce the burden on the local communities, a process

for awards should be employed wherein communities first apply to the

State Advisory Group, and then develop their plans after there is a

much greater chance of being funded.

Another option would be for OJJDP to mandate that localities should

build upon existing plans, where they exist.

Response. During the initial implementation of the Title V program,

some localities will have the experience to initiate and develop a

three year plan in a short timeframe. In order to establish effectively

operating programs during this first year, State Advisory Groups may

want to consider giving priority to applicant communities that have the

capacity to develop strong plans. For instance, a State Advisory Group

may target communities that already have planning boards involved in

broad-based prevention planning.

OJJDP encourages localities to build upon existing prevention plans

which are based on a risk and protection factor approach.

Comment. OJJDP should encourage or mandate that whenever possible,

localities must designate existing coalitions or boards, with

prevention responsibilities similar to those required by Title V, as

the Prevention Policy Board.

It may be difficult to convene a representative Prevention Policy

Board of not more than 21 members. Can the Prevention Policy Board

exceed 21 members?

Response. The guideline requires the local applicants to designate

or form a Prevention Policy Board. OJJDP encourages the use of existing

similar boards to meet the Title V requirements. This would facilitate

coordination of funding sources and collaboration among agencies and

governments.

Title V expressly requires that the board membership consist of not

less than 15 and not more than 21 members. Localities may convene

boards of more than 21 members for broad-based prevention planning, but

recommendations and other actions regarding the Title V three year plan

and funds can only be made by a specified board (or committee of a

larger board) comprised of 15 to 21 members.

Comment. Six respondents indicated that specified groups of people

need to be represented on Prevention Policy Boards including youth,

families with or parents of children in the system or at risk

(consumers of prevention services), and members that reflect the

racial, ethnic and gender composition of the community's youth

population.

Response. The additional representation described by these six

respondents furthers the goal of having representative local boards.

However, overly prescriptive Board requirements reduce local

flexibility, particularly in the use of existing planning bodies.

Therefore, OJJDP has modified the guideline to encourage the inclusion

of these interests on the Prevention Policy Boards, to the maximum

extent possible.

Comment. Youth development organizations should be included in the

planning process and considered as a primary existing resource for

prevention services--they have extensive experience in primary

prevention programs.

Response. All human services agencies that in any way deal with

children, youth, and families, including youth development

organizations, should be involved in the planning process and

considered as resources to assist in implementation of the local

prevention plan. Technical assistance to States and localities is

available through OJJDP to help in identifying and accessing prevention

resources, including youth development organizations.

Comment. Can a Prevention Policy Board consisting of a private

nonprofit organization and a local government apply for grant funds? If

allowable, must the local government administer the funds?

Response. Prevention Policy Boards are not eligible to apply for a

Title V grants from the States. Only units of general local government

are eligible.

A private nonprofit organization and a unit of general local

government could enter into a partnership to implement the Title V

program, provided that the unit of general local government is the

applicant and all Federal fund administrative requirements are met.

Comment. The exact duties of the Prevention Policy Board are not

clear. The Board should be charged with the development of the local

prevention plan.

Response. One purpose of the Board is to provide a vehicle for

community commitment to and involvement in making the community a

healthy place for the development of children and youth. Involving the

Board in the development of the plan is one way of gaining that

commitment and involvement.

The guideline has been amended to require a description of how the

Prevention Policy Board will provide general oversight for developing

the plan, approve the plan prior to submission to the State, and make

recommendations to the responsible local agency for the distribution of

funds and evaluation of funded activities.

Each Prevention Policy Board is encouraged to develop by-laws in

concert with the responsible local agency to define its duties and how

it will operate. Technical assistance is available through OJJDP for

Board development.

Comment. The Prevention Policy Board should be charged with the

mission of producing positive outcomes for youth, not just delinquency

prevention.

Response. OJJDP is promoting risk and protection focused

delinquency prevention as a promising strategy for the Prevention

Policy Board to use in addressing the complex and varied sources of

delinquent behavior in children and producing positive outcomes for

youth.

Comment. Will OJJDP provide application kits for States?

Response. A sample State application is available from OJJDP.

Comment. The training on risk focused prevention is an excellent

idea. However, given the limited resources available to localities to

travel to the training, the training should be targeted on the

localities which have been selected to receive grants. Also, a training

for trainers would develop in-state capacity to deliver training in a

more cost-effective manner. The use of teleconference training should

also be considered.

Response. The purpose of the training is to introduce key community

leaders to risk and protection focused prevention, and enhance the

localities knowledge and skills in prevention planning. Planning must

occur before grants are awarded.

OJJDP hopes to provide training for State training teams in fiscal

year 1995. OJJDP is also examining the use of teleconferencing as a

vehicle for the more efficient delivery of training.

Comment. OJJDP should take an aggressive stance on the delivery of

technical assistance.

Response. OJJDP is developing a capacity, through its Part B

technical assistance contract, to provide technical assistance to every

community which is developing or implementing a delinquency prevention

plan.

Comment. What is the role of the State Advisory Groups in

implementing the Title V program?

Response. The role of the State Advisory Group is to establish

program eligibility criteria, establish procedures for submission and

review of local applications, and approve or recommend approval of

Title V subgrant awards.

Comment. OJJDP should provide examples of prevention plans which

meet the OJJDP requirements.

Response. OJJDP is making resource material on prevention,

including sample plans, available through the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse, 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, Telephone

(800) 638-8736.

Comment. If a prevention project serves a specific service

catchment area within the boundaries of a unit of general local

government, is the compliance certification limited only to the

catchment area or the entire area within the boundaries of the unit of

general local government? Is certification limited to only those

facilities operated by the local government, exclusive of facilities

located within the boundaries of the local government but operated by

other governments?

Response. In order to be eligible to receive Title V funds, a unit

of general local government must be certified by the State Advisory

Group as in compliance with the JJDP Act mandates. The compliance

certification applies to all facilities operated or contracted by the

unit of general local government. The certification is not limited to a

specific catchment area within the boundaries of the unit of general

local government. Likewise, the certification must also include any

facilities that the unit of general local government operates,

contracts for, or uses inside or outside its boundaries. However, the

certification does not apply to facilities operated or controlled by

other governmental units within the local governmental boundaries that

are not used by the local government.

Comment. Compliance with the Disproportionate Minority Confinement

mandate is difficult to assess since it is just beginning to unfold in

many jurisdictions.

The guidelines need to specify how the State Advisory Group's

should certify unit of general local government compliance with the

Disproportionate Minority Confinement where the Phase II Study has yet

to be completed.

Response. The inclusion in Title V of the provision requiring local

compliance with the mandates reflects an intent to use Title V funds as

an inducement to bring localities into compliance. The State Advisory

Groups and the State agencies should use this provision to gain the

cooperation and commitment of units of general local government to

assess and address disproportionate minority confinement. To certify a

unit of general local government on disproportionate minority

confinement compliance, the State Advisory Group must determine that

the level of cooperation and commitment is satisfactory to support

efforts to achieve the goals of the disproportionate minority

confinement provision.

Comment. The certification of compliance with the mandates should

occur at the time the subgrantee application is submitted.

Response. The guideline requires that units of general local

government must obtain a certification prior to applying for an award

of funds. This requirement is intended to eliminate a local government

developing a three year comprehensive plan as the basis for an

application for a grant which the locality is ineligible to receive.

Comment. In States where the compliance monitoring data is

generated by county-wide reporting, the State Advisory Groups should be

allowed to certify a city's compliance based on the overall compliance

status of the county.

Response. Section 505 of the JJDP Act requires that in order for a

unit of general local government to be eligible to receive a grant of

Title V funds, the unit must be ``in compliance with the requirements

of part B of Title II.'' OJJDP has interpreted this to mean that the

unit of general local government which is seeking eligibility to apply

for an award of Title V funds must be in compliance with the four

``mandates'' of part B of Title II. Thus, a city's eligibility must be

determined by the compliance data relevant to that city.

Comment. The language under the heading ``Local Subgrantee

Qualifications'' is unclear. It appears to say that all units of

general local government must be certified by the State Advisory Group

to be in compliance with the mandates of the JJDP Act.

Response. The guideline does not require the State Advisory Group

to certify all units of general local government, only those that wish

to apply for Title V funds.

Comment. Is it up to each State to define ``at-risk?''

Response. The guideline states that ``the target population is all

at-risk children in a given community.'' The Title V program is based

on analyzing and addressing research-based risk factors which are

identified in target communities. All children and youth who are

exposed to these identified risk factors are the target population. In

many cases, this would mean all children and youth in a target

community would be considered at-risk.

Comment. Define in-kind match, and identify what type of in-kind

match is allowed.

Response. In-kind match is determined by the value of goods and

services received and used in the program that do not have a money cost

to the grantee. In-kind match may be provided by the grantee or donated

by a third party, such as a volunteer or a public or private agency.

For example, the value of the time donated by a recreational counselor

who is not an employee of the grantee could be counted as in-kind

match. Likewise, the value of office space or equipment donated by a

private corporation could also be counted as in-kind match. Note that

the value of the time of an employee of the grantee who is not being

compensated by grant funds, but is providing service to the project

funded by the grant, would be counted as cash match.

John J. Wilson,

Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

[FR Doc. 94-18650 Filed 7-29-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P