Official websites use .gov
A
.gov website belongs to an official government
organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A
lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to
the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official,
secure websites.
Title II, Part B Formula Grants
16.540
The Title II Formula Grants Program provides funding to support state and local efforts to plan, establish, operate, coordinate, and evaluate policies and projects, directly or through grants and contracts with public and private agencies, for the development of more effective education, training, research, prevention, diversion, treatment, and rehabilitation, compliance with the core requirements and overall juvenile justice system improvement efforts. The objectives are the following: (1) grant funding to states to assist them in planning, establishing, operating, coordinating, and evaluating projects for the development of more effective juvenile delinquency programming (i.e., education, training, research, prevention, diversion, treatment, and rehabilitation); (2) facilitate state compliance with the core requirements under the JJDP Act (34 USC 11131(a)(11), (12), (13),and (15); (3) provide and support training and technical assistance to benefit the Formula Grants Program; and (4) support research, evaluation, and statistics activities designed to benefit the Formula Grants Program. The performance measures associated with assistance listing are: 1: Number of individuals served (by population) 2: Percentage of training participants who reported they applied training knowledge or skills within 3 months of attending a training
This chart shows obligations for the program by fiscal year. All data for this chart was provided by the
administering agency and sourced from SAM.gov, USASpending.gov, and Treasury.gov.
For more information on each of these data sources, please see the
About the data page.
57 applications were received and 57 awards were granted in FY2017, including Non-Participating states. In FY16, 57 applications were received and 57 awards were granted, including Non-Participating states. In FY15, 57 applications were received and 57 awards were granted, including Non-Participating states. Accomplishments for FY 16, the most recent year data is available includes: 75% of program youth exhibited a desired change in target behavior in the short term. 5% of program youth reoffended (recidivism rate) in the short term. Maryland provided funding to 12 state and local juvenile justice systems in an effort to develop intervention and prevention programs. Minnesota used grant funding to increase delinquency prevention and reduce the number of referrals from schools to police agencies. Nebraska implemented a multifaceted approach to decreasing gang violence while enhancing community-based violence prevention programs.
In FY 2018, 56 applications were received and 56 awards were granted, including Non-Participating states. 57 applications were received and 57 awards were granted in FY2017, including Non-Participating states. In FY16, 57 applications were received and 57 awards were granted, including Non-Participating states. Accomplishments for FY 17, the most recent year data is available includes: 67% of program youth exhibited a desired change in target behavior in the short term. 7% of program youth reoffended (recidivism rate) in the short term. Minnesota supported the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe’s youth programming, which provided services to over 100 tribal youth to increase leadership skills and reduce the prevalence of at-risk behavior. Florida developed a human trafficking screening tool to identify children who may be victims of human trafficking and conducted training across the state on the issue of human trafficking victimization.
Funded sites are required to report on existing performance metrics specifically developed for the 32 purpose areas under the Formula Grants program (see https://ojjdppmt.ojp.gov/help/titleIIdocs.html). The latest available performance measures data indicate that nearly 88,935 at-risk youth were directly served with these grant dollars.
In addition: • 89 percent of youth successfully completed the defined program requirements successfully. • 67 percent of youth improved in a behavior area in the short term. The most commonly addressed behavior issue was social competence, with 91 percent of targeted youth exhibiting a behavior change. In addition, 93 percent of targeted youth exhibited a change in antisocial behavior and 53 percent of targeted youth exhibited a behavior change in school attendance. • Of program youth tracked, 28 percent had an arrest or delinquent offense, and seven percent reoffended with a new arrest or delinquent offense (short term).
States reported numerous accomplishments, including (but not limited to) educational enhancements, growth in mentoring partnerships, increased use of alternative programs to avoid placement in juvenile detention centers, and reduction of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system. Minnesota, for example reported the following: • Minnesota supported Crossover programming at eight sites throughout the state, directly benefitting 778 youth who are dually involved in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. • Minnesota initiated a two-year project called, ‘Listen, Learn, Lead,’ focused on DMC-data collection via fishbowl conversations with youth in each of the state’s judicial districts. • The Minnesota state agency partnered with the Minnesota Department of Health to plan the first phase of a Comprehensive Suicide Prevention Training pilot program at Northwestern Minnesota Juvenile Detention Center in Bemidji, Minnesota. • Minnesota supported Minnesota Corrections Associations’ ‘Juvenile Justice 21’ project, resulting in the production of mental health and data-sharing toolkits for practitioners.
Additionally, Alaska used funding to support 168 youth from nine Alaska Native tribes on positive youth development and cultural resilience activities.
Single Audit Applies (2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F):
For additional information on single audit requirements for this program, review the current Compliance Supplement.
OMB is working with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and agency offices of inspectors general to include links to relevant oversight reports. This section will be updated once this information is made available.
