National Evaluation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 4046)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

This study examined the operation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program (JAIBG) from fiscal years 1998 through 2000. Specifically the process evaluation examined the implementation of the program throughout the country and how states and eligible jurisdictions expended the funds. The JAIBG provided block grants to state and local governments as financial incentives to increase accountability within their juvenile justice systems by implementing several juvenile justice policies and practices to ensure accountability. These policies and practices included prosecuting as adults juveniles who committed serious violent crimes, expanding the array of graduated sanctions available to juvenile courts, holding parents responsible for seeing that their children obey court orders, and establishing juvenile records systems that parallel those for adult offenders. The JAIBG defined 12 program purpose areas (PPAs) that encompassed all phases of juvenile justice to which state and local governments could award funds. The phases included law enforcement, detention, prosecution, defense, courts, probation, correctional institutions, and aftercare, as well as support services like juvenile justice information systems.

Study Design View help for Study Design

To conduct this process evaluation of JAIBG, the researchers relied on secondary analysis of administrative data, which was supplemented with additional information collected by surveys. The State and Tribal Assistance Division of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP) of the United States Department of Justice developed a follow-up information form (FIF) to collect additional JAIBG-specific information on subgrants to show states' distribution of JAIBG funds within program purpose areas, and by type of jurisdiction. Grantees submitted their initial followup information for fiscal year 1998 on paper forms by April 2001 and entered the data for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 through OJJDP's Web-based grant management system (GMS) by April 2002. A total of 5,452 grantees reported this follow-up information, which is contained in Part 1. Abt Associates Inc. administered one data collection form and three surveys by mail. After the administration of all four surveys in December 2001, the researchers employed periodic remails, reminder postcards, and followup phone calls. To learn more detail about the distribution of funds, the researchers developed a form that enabled them to look more closely at the purpose of the fiscal year 1998 award. A total of 999 JAIBG programs were sampled to receive the form by mail and to provide the supplemental programmatic information. JAIBG coordinators filled out the forms for all sampled programs in their state. In one state, the JAIBG coordinator distributed the forms to the subgrant recipients to complete. Supplemental data, found in Part 2, are available for 862 programs. A total of 800 subgrant award recipients returned the perceptions and attitudes surveys that were mailed directly to the recipients of the above sampled programs. The results are contained in Part 3. The JAIBG program stimulated collaboration among local stakeholders in juvenile accountability programs such as units of local government, police, courts, prosecutors, defenders, probation, detention, community organizations, not-for-profit service providers, schools, and human service organizations. As members of these groups formally collaborated on local Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalitions (JCECs), they formed linkages and interactions that extended beyond JAIBG. A total of 1,139 state JCEC members received a copy of a perceptions and attitudes survey. Data are available for 521 State JCEC members in Part 4. Finally, a total of 457 local JCEC members received a copy of a perceptions and attitudes survey. Data are available from 177 local JCEC members in Part 5.

Sample View help for Sample

To collect the data contained in Part 1, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) intended to gather subgrantee award information annually on the follow-up information form (FIF). However they experienced difficulties with their Web-based grant management system. The reporting rate for each year of JAIBG funding was 88.9 percent for 1998, 63.0 percent for 1999, and 74.2 percent for 2000. The sampling procedure for the supplemental instrument consisted of selecting all awards made to state subgrant award recipients in 1998, resulting in 210 awards. Based on a robustness and waiver typology developed by the researchers, 240 local subgrant 1998 award forms were randomly sampled from typologies 1, 3, and 4. All typology 2 forms were selected, resulting in 69 forms. In total, 999 programs from fiscal year 1998 were sampled to provide the supplemental information contained in Part 2. This sample was taken from only 53 of the 56 jurisdictions, as three had not submitted fiscal year 1998 FIF forms. The data in Part 3 was collected via surveys that were sent directly to the same 1998 subgrant award recipients as the above 999 sampled programs. To collect the data in Part 4, the researchers obtained Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalitions (JCEC) membership lists from the state's JAIBG coordinator for all states and territories except Alaska. In total, 1,189 state JCEC members received a copy of the perceptions and attitudes survey. Because of the large number of local JCEC members and the difficulty in obtaining current lists, a stratified sampling procedure was used to collect the data in Part 5. States were first ordered within typology categories according to their total JAIBG allocation after which the medial allocation for each category was computed. The researcher then randomly selected two states above the median and two states below, as well as alternates. A total of 16 states were selected along with alternates. Following the selection of states, the researchers used the fiscal year 1998 FIF form as the basis for local JCEC selection. First, they removed all forms in which the jurisdiction type "state" or "state agency" was indicated. Second, duplicate grant recipients were eliminated. Third, the remaining forms were divided into "yes" or "no" categories based on whether the subgrantee represented a regional coalition in order to include variation in collaboration. Fourth, forms in these two categories were numbered and random-number generated to select one form from each category. Alternates were also selected at that time. Following this selection, the researchers used local JCEC member information provided on the FIF form, or they requested the information from the state JAIBG coordinator. Through this process, the researchers developed a sample of 457 local JCEC members.

Universe View help for Universe

Part 1: State and local subgrants of the JAIBG program during fiscal years 1998 through 2000. Part 2: State and local programs funded by subgrants of the JAIBG program during fiscal year 1998. Part 3: State and local subgrant award recipients of the JAIBG program during fiscal year 1998. Part 4: State JCEC members who received JAIBG program funding during fiscal year 1998. Part 5: Local JCEC members who received JAIBG program funding during fiscal year 1998.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Variables in Part 1 include state, fiscal year, federal award number, state subgrant award number, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, state subgrant award amount, amount of funds budgeted for administrative purposes and for each of 12 purpose areas, total amount of funds spent in subgrant, and number of the various entities involved in juvenile crime prevention. Variables in Part 2 include federal grant number, state subgrant award number, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, subgrant award amount, type of program, primary purpose of funded programs in each of the 12 purpose areas, whether the funds supported a new program in that purpose area, and allocation of funds (administrative costs, benefits, construction, contract services/consulting, equipment, supplies and operating expenses, personnel, travel, other) and total funds in each purpose area. Variables in Part 3 include state, planning typology of state, and recipient's professional affiliations (by category). The survey included questions about needs for which funds could not be used, satisfaction with flexibility of the JAIBG program in allowing selection of funding priorities, whether there were specific obstacles presented in the JAIBG structure that prevented the program from meeting juvenile justice needs, and whether the recipient was satisfied with the time it took to receive the funding. Variables in Part 4 and Part 5 include state, planning typology of state, and professional affiliation (by category). The surveys included questions about satisfaction with the pass-through provision, satisfaction with program purpose areas, whether there were juvenile justice needs for which the state or locality could not use the JAIBG funds, satisfaction with flexibility of the JAIBG program in allowing selection of funding priorities, whether there were specific obstacles presented in the JAIBG structure that prevented the program from meeting juvenile justice needs, whether the planning process identified needs accurately and helped allocate funds in a way that met their juvenile justice needs, whether the JCEC got useful information about the progress of funded projects, whether the state or locality achieved its intended outcomes from the JAIBG grant, and satisfaction with the time it took OJJDP to provide funds. In addition, the state JCEC members were asked if they were satisfied with the formula that determines the amount for which each state was eligible. The local JCEC members were also asked how satisfied they were with the timeliness that JAIBG funding was awarded to local grantees.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

For Part 1, the reporting rate for each year of JAIBG funding was 88.9 percent for 1998, 63.0 percent for 1999, and 74.2 percent for 2000. For Part 2, of the 53 sampled jurisdictions only 39 (73.6 percent) responded, resulting in an overall response rate of 86.4 percent. For Part 3, the response rate was 80.1 percent. For Part 4 and Part 5, the researchers calculated adjusted response rates after the elimination of cases in the sample with invalid contact information and those inappropriately contacted. For Part 4, the response rate was 45.7 percent and the adjusted response rate was 50.7 percent. For Part 5, the response rate was 38.5 percent and the adjusted response rate was 47.6 percent.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

For Parts 1-2, no scales were used, and for Parts 3-5, several Likert-type scales were used.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2006-09-22

Version History View help for Version History