Community Assessment Centers (CAC's)

Overview: Community Assessment Centers (CAC's) provide a 24-hour centralized point of intake and assessment or single point of entry for juveniles who have or are likely to come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Juvenile justice and community-based youth-service providers collocate at the CAC to make basic and indepth assessments of the juvenile's circumstances and treatment needs; arrange for detention and release to a safe and appropriate setting; develop recommendations; facilitate access to services; and manage or monitor appropriate treatment and rehabilitation services. In essence, the CAC is a "one-stop shop" designed to facilitate efficient prevention and intervention service delivery at the front end of the juvenile justice system. This initiative represents a balanced approach toward supporting the planning and development efforts of CAC's in diverse communities. The following discussion, which distinguishes between existing programs as "assessment centers" and those programs having made a commitment to implement OJJDP's Community Assessment Center (CAC) concept as "CAC's," sets forth the guidelines and requirements for each of the four components of this initiative.

Purpose: To assist the juvenile justice field in the research, planning, and development of community assessment centers (CAC's) as a tool in providing earlier, more meaningful and effective prevention and intervention services to high-risk juveniles through four coordinated efforts: supporting communities in the planning of CAC's; supporting communities that have already implemented an assessment center but are committed to enhancing the existing project; conducting an evaluation of CAC planning efforts and existing assessment centers designed to shed light on the operations of various assessment centers and on the efficacy of the CAC concept; and providing training and technical assistance on essential elements of the concept to communities in various stages of CAC development. Information related to assessment centers is available from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC). See page 3 for information on how to contact JJC.

Background: This program implements Section 261 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended. The juvenile justice system in America is overburdened. Juvenile violent crime arrest rates are rising and, based on population and arrest trends, could double by the year 2010. In 1994, 19 percent of persons arrested for a violent crime were below age 18 and 35 percent of those arrests were of youth under the age of 15. Additionally, as the number of arrests of juveniles continues to increase, so too does the number of juveniles sent to criminal court. In fact, from 1989 to 1993, the number of cases judicially waived from juvenile court to criminal court increased 41 percent.

Juvenile justice and other professionals continue to search for viable solutions to the problem of juvenile delinquency, violence, and victimization solutions that will prevent or drama-tically reduce these problems. Many factors contribute to juvenile delinquency and victimi-zation; some of these factors are more important than others. If the causes of these problems can be identified, communities can then address them, at least to a large extent, through their established systems of care and treatment including the juvenile justice, human service, health, and education systems. These systems are often plagued with problems of their own: poor or no needs assessment processes, a lack of case management and followup, service gaps, redundancies, lack of adequate funding, and fragmentation.

The Nation's systems of care have had a difficult time intervening successfully and early enough to prevent chronic delinquency. According to Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry (1995), based on a sample of Rochester, New York, youth, 39 percent who commit their first violent offense at age 9 or younger eventually become chronic offenders, as compared with 23 percent who begin at age 13 or later. Huizinga et al. further state that chronic offenders begin their offending careers earlier than average and they are heavily involved in other forms of delinquency and drug crimes. This same study indicates that most of these offenders are not reached by the system early enough to prevent their violent or chronic offending. For inter-ventions to take place, the juvenile must first be brought to the attention of the system and his or her needs accurately and appropriately identified and assessed. In many cases, minor offenses are overlooked in light of the demands on law enforcement and the amount of time and effort necessary to take a youth into custody. In the cases where a "booking" does take place, many local systems do not have the capacity to effectively assess the child's immediate service needs or underlying problems. Further exacerbating the problem is that even where needs are appropriately assessed, the necessary services are often unknown or unavailable.

These systemic dilemmas present barriers to the development of a coordinated and effective continuum of service delivery. Krisberg and Austin argue that the current organization of adolescent social and health services, for example, is characterized by rigidly drawn agency turfs and budgetary categories, a situation that contributes to fragmented and wasteful deployment of scarce resources. It is not uncommon for multiple caseworkers to be assigned to the same juvenile and family, sometimes unbeknownst to one another. From the vantage point of professionals from different fields, the youth is delinquent, abused, in need of special educational services, or welfare dependent. In the typical scenario, no one service provider or agency possesses an overall view of the family's or adolescent's needs. As a result a compre-hensive and integrated treatment plan is rarely developed.

Krisberg and Austin further state that the categorical nature of government funding and the lack of interagency collaboration lead to difficult turf battles to include or exclude certain clients. Older adolescents, particularly those with histories of mental illness or aggressive behavior, are the most likely to be omitted by agency service criteria. These juveniles generally end up in juvenile correctional institutions because public corrections agencies cannot refuse to take custody of adolescents who are lawfully committed to their care. Thus, juvenile corrections agencies must manage a wide variety of youngsters that other agencies refuse to serve. As fiscal pressures mount, the juvenile corrections system becomes, by default, an inappropriate social service net.

Traditionally, local juvenile justice-related services, including family preservation, mental health, and substance abuse prevention and treatment, are delivered on a "slot driven" basis when a treatment space is available. Rather than providing a system of coordinated care, service providers often operate independently of one another and often are unaware of their clients' and their clients' families involvement in other services. For children and families besieged by problems and multiple needs such as drug treatment, family counseling, vocational training, and housing assistance, accessing appropriate services involves navigating a maze of caseworkers, intake workers, and counselors and completing complicated applications and forms. Exacerbating this process is the fact that the care received by these families is likely to be redundant and incomplete because no single provider can determine and meet all of the families' needs. It is due, in part, to this lack of coordination that multiple-problem youth are not served properly and find themselves engaging in high-risk delinquent behavior and facing juvenile court processing. Additionally, because the system itself lacks coordination, the imposition of accountability for youth committing serious acts does not always occur and is therefore not certain. Soler (1992) points out that communities across the Nation are trying to address these problems by increasing cooperation and collaboration among agencies. Efforts have ranged from simple measures to increase cooperation, such as establishment of inter-agency committees, to comprehensive and complicated restructuring of existing service systems.

OJJDP believes that the CAC concept presents a promising tool to help address the systemic barriers to effective intervention and meet the needs of individual youth who are at risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquents. Collaboratively reforming the juvenile justice and related systems into an integrated service delivery system with a single point of entry and the necessary infrastructure will go a long way toward reducing or eliminating the gaps, redundancies, fragmentation, and other barriers of youth-serving systems. Additionally, the CAC concept encourages immediate and comprehensive needs assessments of youth who come into contact with or demonstrate a likelihood to come into contact with the justice system. Once the youth's needs are adequately and appropriately assessed, either by a case manager or an assessment team, the CAC concept advocates the development of an integrated treatment plan and the provision of necessary treatment services that ideally are case managed throughout the treatment and rehabilitation process. This type of case management responsibility could, for example, be shared with CAC case managers and probation officers or their equivalent. Within the CAC concept, once a youth has been assessed and a treatment plan has been developed, referrals are made and the youth's progress and outcomes are continuously tracked across various systems of care. Case managers track the youth's progress aided by a comprehensive management information system with the capability of alerting the case manager to new offenses, family interactions with other systems, and treatment outcomes.

Assessment centers typically involve partnerships between juvenile justice agencies and youth- service providers that are located together and provide a central intake point for youth who have been taken into custody by law enforcement. While specific approaches vary, centers generally seek to:

The first known assessment center opened in Florida in 1993. Because assessment centers are relatively new, limited documentation is available about the approach. To further the program development process, OJJDP developed a concept paper on assessment centers in 1995 with input from a focus group of justice and human service professionals. The consensus was that the CAC approach was a viable one, provided that CAC's avoided breaches of confidentiality, provided due process, and avoided unnecessary "net widening." The concept paper identified several essential CAC features:

The focus group concluded, however, that too little was known about existing assessment centers to determine what support communities would need for developing an enhanced CAC model or whether a new program model should be recommended.

To provide further information, OJJDP sponsored a nationwide fact-finding effort on assessment centers in 1996. This effort involved a mail survey that identified nine operational programs exhibiting key elements of the CAC concept. The fact-finding effort also involved visits to seven assessment center sites to collect detailed information about program development, operations, and results.

The fact-finding effort revealed that certain features are common to all or nearly all of the programs visited. Despite their commonalities, however, each program has unique features that result from tailoring the approach to fit the local jurisdiction's needs and resources and State statutes and regulations. All programs were developed through a multiagency planning process, which usually lasted a year or more. All of the assessment center programs visited were relatively new, and therefore none of the programs has been formally evaluated.

Based on the information available, it appears that assessment centers save law enforcement time, increase coordination among the agencies involved in working with juveniles, increase the amount and quality of information upon which juvenile justice system decisions are based, and speed up the decisionmaking process in some types of cases. The fact-finding also found that effects on arrests, detention, diversion, and filings, as well as access to services for youth and families, may vary from site to site depending on State statutes, law enforcement policies, and other circumstances. Most interviewees believe that police take more youth into custody if an assessment center is available, although the effect may be small in some communities. Those involved in the programs generally view this a plus because it may provide an oppor-tunity for early intervention, but they acknowledge that communities must be prepared to offer appropriate programs and treatments. None of the judges interviewed believed that the assessment center had increased the court's workload, nor is there any evidence that the programs have increased detention rates.

The fact-finding report concluded that it was too soon to say that any particular model is more effective than another in meeting the needs of delinquent and at-risk youth or improving juvenile justice processes and outcomes. However, the report recommended that communities could benefit from assistance in developing broad-based plans for CAC's; enhancing the capabilities of existing assessment centers in areas such as case management and the development and use of management information; and evaluating the impact of CAC's on individual youth, the juvenile justice and youth-serving systems, and the community. This final report is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. (See p. 3 of this Application Kit for information on how to order a copy.)

Based on the results of the fact-finding project and on other feedback, OJJDP will support CAC planning and implementation efforts through a variety of mechanisms in Fiscal Year 1996:

  1. OJJDP will support two communities that have made a commitment to implement the CAC concept and are in the planning phase of program development. Two planning grants will be awarded for a 1-year project period. Each planning grant community will receive up to $75,000 for this purpose.

  2. OJJDP will support two communities that have already implemented an assessment center and are committed to enhancing their program. Two enhancement grants will be awarded for a 1-year project period. Each enhancement grant community will receive up to $125,000 for this purpose. Enhancement grant communities must be committed to incorporating the basic elements of the CAC concept.

  3. An independent evaluation of both the planning and enhancement grant communities' efforts will be supported in an effort to make available information on how to implement the CAC concept and whether this concept, once implemented, lives up to its promise. The evaluation will also include a special and intensive focus on issues such as adherence to due process standards, net widening, the impact of CAC's on diversion rates, and on other issues that may influence further development of this model. It is anticipated that evaluation findings will help other communities in developing a successful CAC model. Up to $300,000 for a 2-year project period will be available for this purpose.

  4. Training and technical assistance on best practices with regard to the CAC critical elements of assessment, case management, service integration, and MIS development will be provided to planning and enhancement grant sites. Up to $250,000 for a 2-year project period will be available for this purpose.

This balanced approach to the exploration of CAC's will not only help communities begin implementing the concept and enhance existing efforts but will also support the field in terms of knowledge gained through the evaluation and technical assistance efforts.

OJJDP's interest in the CAC concept is also supported by the CAC's consistency with OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (1993), which sets forth key principles to guide communities' efforts in the battle to prevent delinquent conduct and reduce juvenile involvement in serious, violent, and chronic delinquency.

Through the four programs announced in this solicitation, OJJDP can support communities that are committed to changing the way business is done in juvenile justice and begin reforming the system to create more positive outcomes for troubled youth and, ultimately, safer streets within the Nation's communities.

Community Assessment Centers: Planning for the Future

Goal: To support up to two jurisdictions that have made a commitment to develop and implement a community assessment center through an intensified and comprehensive planning process that will ensure the development of an efficient and effective CAC.

Objectives: The objectives of this initiative are:

  1. To support communities in their efforts to identify and engage the key leadership of the jurisdiction to support planning for and implementation of the CAC.

  2. To support the identification of a structure or mechanism to lead the planning effort.

  3. To support the identification of relevant Federal, State, and local statutes that may affect the implementation and function of the CAC.

  4. To support the determination of the feasibility of CAC implementation within the jurisdiction in terms of program costs (capital and operating) and available or potential funding sources (State, local, and private).

  5. To support and facilitate the development of a CAC design that is consistent with the OJJDP Community Assessment Center concept and not limited in scope.

  6. To support the creation of a short- and long-term strategy and implementation plan for the CAC.

  7. To provide technical assistance in the planning, development, and potential implementation of the CAC.

  8. To ensure an effective planning process and the replicability of the CAC development process through the provision of a multisite evaluation of the planning projects.

Program Strategy: Based on OJJDP's recent fact-finding project regarding existing assess-ment center models, it is clear that the programs currently in operation are based on a strategy developed through an intense collaborative planning process lasting at least 12 months. The OJJDP Community Assessment Center concept, which has a potentially broader focus and is predicated on other types of intrasystem reform efforts (for example, overarching case management and integrated management information systems and service delivery), may require a more intensified and potentially longer planning process. OJJDP will support jurisdictions willing to plan for and implement the CAC concept through planning grants to two jurisdictions for 12 months of intensive planning. Jurisdictions that have already begun implementing an assessment center are not eligible for a planning grant but are referred to the following solicitation entitled Community Assessment Centers: Enhancing the Concept.

Jurisdictions applying for one of the two planning grants must address in their application and be willing to undertake at least the following tasks:

Products: Grantees are expected to submit a comprehensive and detailed design and implementation plan as described under Task III above.

Eligibility Requirements: Applications are invited from public agencies and private nonprofit agencies, institutions and organizations that have made a commitment to develop and imple-ment a community assessment center consistent with OJJDP's concept. Applicants must demonstrate that the key agencies and organizations in the community are committed to implementing the CAC and, at a minimum, that sufficient funding to undertake such an effort has been identified.

Although no match is required for this particular solicitation, the level of local and State commitment to the project will be considered in determining the strength of the application.

Applications are invited from communities where an assessment center planning process has not begun and from communities where a process has been started but is not scheduled for completion within the coming 12 months. Applications from jurisdictions that have already begun the planning process must be submitted by the designated lead agency for the planning process.

Selection Criteria: Applicants will be selected according to the selection criteria outlined below. Geographical diversity will also be considered.

Problem(s) To Be Addressed (15 points)

Applicants must provide a clear and concise statement of the problems to be addressed by community assessment centers.

Goals and Objectives (10 points)

Applicants must define goals and objectives for the planning process. Objectives should be specific and measurable where possible.

Project Design (30 points)

Applicants must present a well-detailed "plan to plan." Applicants should adequately address the requirements and tasks listed above and any other significant issues related to the planning process design.

Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)

Applicants' project management structure and staffing must be adequate and appropriate for the successful implementation of the project. Applicants must present a management plan that identifies responsible individuals, their time commitment, major tasks, and milestones. Applicants must document evidence of the organizations' ability to conduct the project successfully. The applicant should clearly indicate that it is the primary or lead agency or organization designated to lead the planning and implementation effort and that it has the support of the community and other agencies (public and private). Staff r�sum�s should be attached.

Budget (10 points)

Applicants must provide a budget that is complete, detailed, reasonable, allowable, and cost effective in relation to the project's activities.

Award Period: The project period will be 12 months.

Award Amount: Up to $75,000 is available for two planning grants. Additional funding depends on grantee performance, availability of funds, and other criteria established at the time of award. Additional funding also depends on OJJDP's assessment of the project's potential for successful implementation and commitment of local resources.

Delivery Instructions: All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 1600 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301 251 5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, you must clearly write "Community Assessment Centers: Planning for the Future."

Due Date: Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. EDT on August 21, 1996.

Contact: For further information call Jim Burch, Program Manager, Special Emphasis Division, 202-307-5914, or send an e-mail inquiry to [email protected].

Community Assessment Centers: Enhancing the Concept

Goals: To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of existing assessment centers by supporting various and specific program enhancements, and to provide support to existing assessment centers in an effort to create consistency with OJJDP's Community Assessment Center concept.

Objectives: The objectives of this initiative are:

  1. To support the identification, through analysis and technical assistance, of a priority enhancement area or areas for the community assessment centers that are also consistent with the OJJDP CAC concept.

  2. To support the development of a strategy and implementation plan for the selected CAC enhancement(s).

  3. To support the implementation of a CAC enhancement that is consistent with the OJJDP CAC concept and is based on best practices.

  4. To make available training and technical assistance relevant to CAC development and operation.

  5. To foster full participation in the national evaluation of CAC's in an effort to facilitate consistency and to provide information to the field regarding the CAC concept.

Program Strategy: For the purposes of this solicitation, the term "existing assessment center" is used to define an existing program that at a minimum provides centralized intake, preadjudi-cation assessment, referral, and followup for youth who have been taken into custody by police. Further, the assessment is provided immediately that is, within hours or, at most, within a few days of the youth's contact with police. (See Eligibility Requirements for further discussion of eligible applicants.)

Community Assessment Centers show promise in helping to reform the way youth in need of prevention and intervention services are reached and the way services are allocated and delivered. OJJDP believes that this type of program can be an effective way of identifying, assessing the needs of, and providing services to those youth at risk of becoming involved in delinquent or criminal activities and a way of better identifying youth at risk of engaging in high-risk behaviors, such as gang affiliation or involvement. Additionally, OJJDP believes that CAC's can, through a comprehensive and integrated management information system, help to eliminate gaps and redundancies in a jurisdiction's continuum of care for at-risk youth and help to reform the current slot-driven, categorical system of care into an integrated service delivery system.

Based on OJJDP's recent fact-finding project, it is clear that community assessment centers involve a long-term commitment to planning and implementation. Often programs are implemented in stages, because of resource constraints and other factors. Many existing programs have not yet realized their original vision for case management, integration of management information, and other elements. None of the programs visited during the fact finding has fully implemented each of the conceptual features or components identified with OJJDP's CAC concept.

For this reason OJJDP is offering support for selected CAC enhancements to help existing assessment centers provide improved services and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the CAC concept overall. Although many types of program enhancements are possible, OJJDP has determined that several CAC components are most critical to the particular concept and potentially to effective CAC performance and should, therefore, be the focus of this initiative.

Based on OJJDP's CAC focus group discussions early in 1996 and on years of research reflected in OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, OJJDP believes that the most critical areas of the CAC concept consist of the following: Single Point of Entry for All Youth Entering the System

For existing assessment centers, the implementation of enhancements under this area may mean one of two things. First, for assessment centers now processing only those youth suspected or arrested for delinquent acts, this enhancement would entail the creation of a nonsecure processing system or protocol whereby youth not accused of delinquent acts can be brought to the assessment center in a manner that protects the youth from negative labeling and avoids contact with delinquent offenders. This nonsecure process can be used for status offenders, dependent youth, or high-risk youth demonstrating inappropriate behaviors.

For existing assessment centers now serving only nondelinquent youth, this enhancement area may offer the possibility of expanding the scope of intake to include delinquent youth. This type of enhancement has many implications, including the need for a risk assessment instru-ment, a secure and adequately sized area for processing or intake, and appropriate public safety-related equipment and personnel for handling or processing delinquents.

In some cases, however, it may not be feasible for a system's single point of entry to be an actual physical point of entry for all youth coming into contact with the system. Rather, a "virtual" option could be employed in which information gathered at one location could be shared (presumably on a need-to-know and right-to-know basis) with other service providers, via a systemwide or multiagency management information system.

Immediate and Comprehensive Assessments

To effectively address the risks and needs of at-risk youth and youth entering the juvenile justice system as either dependent or delinquent, comprehensive community-based assessments (i.e., performed in a nonsecure setting), where appropriate, are essential.

Community assessment centers can provide an innovative and cost-effective method for inte-grating the risk and needs assessment requirements of the juvenile justice system. In addition, CAC settings can provide access to multidisciplinary perspectives on a youth's needs and, in the case of multiproblem youth, enhance coordination of effort among various treatment providers and case managers who may be involved. The latter benefits also apply to dependent youth and status offenders. By coordinating front-end services for these youth, the juvenile justice system can more effectively intervene to prevent them from becoming delinquent.

Many types of enhancements are possible within this area, including the refinement of assess-ment instruments, the development of a multidisciplinary assessment team, or the develop-ment of a process and capability to perform more indepth assessments where necessary. OJJDP is open to other types of enhancements, as long as the focus is on creating immediate and comprehensive assessments.

Management Information System (MIS)

To effectively monitor a youth's progress through multiple treatment programs, possibly in different systems, CAC's need an infrastructure that can support integrated case management. Additionally, treatment history and prior contact information should be integrated into one system so that professionals performing assessments and designing treatment plans can be quickly made aware of previous intervention attempts. Ideally, the information system should have the capability of (1) receiving and cataloging updates from community service providers and (2) compiling data on the problems of youth in the community (needs), the levels of success in placing youth in needed services (service gaps), and the success of those treatments (preliminary outcomes). This type of reporting has the potential to help communities identify gaps and redundancies in services and the prevalence of risk factors, such as gang involve-ment. An MIS system also promotes accountability within the juvenile justice system.

In addition to case-specific, individual-level data, the MIS can be a useful tool for docu-menting existing services within a community, assuming that services do in fact exist. By acting as a clearinghouse of service providers within the community, the assessment center provides a means of further coordinating service delivery and maximizes limited resources.

Obviously, within this area, enhancement projects are expected to deal with the development of or capacity/capability of a management information system. Priority should be given to developing a comprehensive and integrated system, if possible, as opposed to creating a place where systems are collocated. Additionally, applicants should give priority to developing a system capable of both "input and output," that is, receiving case information and updates from service providers and providing accurate and timely reports that convey valuable information to both the treatment program development process and the policymaking process.

Programs might also choose to enhance their capability to monitor trends in their own opera-tions and services and in the local juvenile justice system. Other than anecdotal information, most current programs have little data readily available about overall program effects on detention, diversion, case filings, and disposition times, for example. Programs may need to develop data systems and reporting procedures to routinely track (1 ) trends in their own caseload that could positively or negatively impact the juvenile justice system (such as rates of referrals to detention or proportions of youth receiving diversion recommendations by age and ethnic group) and (2) trends in the juvenile justice system that might have an impact on the CAC or that might result from its activities. Programs might also strive to generate more information on the number, characteristics, diversion rates, and dispositions of CAC-eligible youth who do not receive program services. This information could be used to help policy-makers determine whether CAC goals are being met and whether corrective action is needed.

Integrated Case Management

Integrated case management is crucial to coordinating and monitoring multiple services that a youth may be receiving, and it is an effective way of providing feedback to the assessment process. In essence, the case manager or team, armed with comprehensive information from an appropriate MIS, is the critical link between comprehensive assessments and effective and integrated service delivery. The case manager or equivalent develops individualized treatment plans based on the results of the assessment(s), aided by input from an MIS and clinical professionals, if necessary. The treatment plan should identify intervention priorities and include both short-term and long-term goals. Treatment plans must be flexible and responsive and should be reassessed at regularly determined intervals (for example, every 2 to 3 months). Reassessment should be based on recent behavior, progress in meeting objectives, and newly identified needs. It should take into account changes in the youth's environment and in available resources.

Applicants might consider varied enhancements in this area. Priority should be given, how-ever, to providing a more thorough case management process for example, greater followup and more frequent or regular treatment plan reassessments. Priority may also be given to enhancement projects that encourage or create the opportunity for juvenile probation depart-ments to access the assessment center's information system for treatment purposes and provide data on progress back into the information system. Additionally, these projects would offer the potential for probation officers and other system components to be notified of additional offenses, treatment plan updates, and other significant developments. In any case the issue of confidentiality should not be overlooked.

Other types of enhancements may also be possible; however, any enhancement project must be designed to both improve the functions of the assessment center and create a greater consis-tency between the assessment center and the CAC concept.

Jurisdictions submitting applications for an enhancement grant must, at a minimum, address the following tasks:

Eligibility Requirements: Applications are invited from public agencies and private nonprofit agencies, institutions and organizations that are primarily responsible for administration and/or operation of an existing assessment center as defined earlier in this solicitation. Applicants must demonstrate that the involved agencies and organizations are committed to specifically implementing the CAC concept and that sufficient funding to implement and sustain the CAC and the enhancement is available. Applicants must also demonstrate a commitment and willingness to participate in the evaluation and to cooperate fully.

Applicants must provide assurances that enhancement project implementation will be consistent with JJDP Act core requirements. These requirements, as identified in Sections 223(a)(12)(A), (13), (14) and (23) of the JJDP Act of 1974 (P.L. 93 415) 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq., as amended, pertain to deinstitutionalization of status offenders; separation of juveniles from adults while securely confined; removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups; and reduction of the disproportionate confinement of minority youth, where it is found to exist.

Selection Criteria: Applicants will be rated according to the criteria outlined below.

Problems To Be Addressed (20 points)

Applicants must include a clear and concise statement of the local problem being addressed by the existing assessment center and the problems that the selected enhancement(s) may resolve.

Goals and Objectives (10 points)

Applicants must define the enhancement project's goals and objectives. Objectives must be clear, concise, measurable, and attainable.

Project Design (35 points)

Applicants must present a clear project design to achieve the project's goals and objectives. In this section applicants must also adequately address each of the tasks described above. The project design must be realistic yet far reaching.

Management and Organizational Capability (25 points)

Applicants' management structure and staffing must be adequate and appropriate for the successful implementation of the project. Applicants must present a workplan that identifies responsible individuals, their time commitment, major tasks to be completed, and milestones. Applicants must document evidence of the organization's ability to conduct the project successfully. Key staff resumes should be included. Applicants must also demonstrate a commitment to working with the evaluator and the technical assistance provider in a cooper-ative manner.

Budget (10 points)

Applicants must provide a proposed budget that is complete, detailed, reasonable, allowable, and cost effective in relation to the activities to be undertaken.

Award Period: The project period will be 12 months.

Award Amount: Up to $125,000 is available for two enhancement grants. Additional funding depends on grantee performance, availability of funds, and other criteria established at the time of award. Additional funding also depends on OJJDP's assessment of the project's potential for successful continued implementation and commitment of local resources.

Delivery Instructions: All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 1600 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301 251 5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, you must clearly write "Community Assessment Centers: Enhancing the Concept."

Due Date: Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. EDT on August 21, 1996.

Contact: For further information call Jim Burch, Program Manager, Special Emphasis Division, 202-307-5914, or send an e-mail inquiry to [email protected].

Evaluating Community Assessment Centers

Goal: To expand the juvenile justice field's knowledge of the impact of community assessment centers and the process of community assessment center development and implementation.

Objectives: The objectives of this initiative are:

  1. To support the implementation of a multisite evaluation of community assessment center planning, implementation, and outcomes.

  2. To assist the community assessment center planning and enhancement sites in their program development and implementation.

  3. To better inform researchers, practitioners, and policymakers as to whether CAC's can help to deploy community resources more efficiently and reduce delinquency and other problem behaviors, including gang involvement.

  4. To identify effective techniques for monitoring program processes and outcomes that might be adapted for ongoing self-assessment of CAC's.

Program Strategy: Although CAC's appear to be a promising tool for reaching youth in need of prevention and intervention services and subsequently providing those services, their value cannot be ascertained until evaluations have been completed. Currently, very little information is available to describe assessment center operations, let alone their effect; in fact, a recent literature search turned up few relevant resource materials. Although OJJDP is optimistic that CAC's can have a positive impact by incorporating "best practices," an evaluation of both the process and impact of such programs is necessary before an accurate determination of their effectiveness can be made. A process evaluation of CAC's will provide interested communities and the juvenile justice field with greater detail as to what is currently happening and how well it conforms to what are known to be best practices. Process evaluation techniques, for exam-ple, can provide interim measures of how the program process actually affects youth who have come into contact with the CAC and how issues such as due process are being handled.

If they are possible, measures of program impact can reveal a great deal more about many other important issues, such as:

For these reasons OJJDP is issuing this solicitation for an evaluation of the planning and enhancement grant (assessment center) sites and any other assessment centers willing to partici-pate in the national evaluation. Recipients of the two planning grants and the two enhancement grants will be required to certify their willingness to participate in the national evaluation and to provide access to data and to representatives of key local agencies. Although the enhance-ment grants are designed to fund specific improvements within existing assessment centers, the evaluator is not limited to evaluating these program elements or improvements but should consider all aspects of program operations and outcomes.

OJJDP recognizes that applicants will have difficulty proposing detailed evaluation designs in the absence of more information about the specific approaches to be adopted by the planning and enhancement grantees. For this reason the evaluator will be expected to develop a detailed evaluation design during the first 90 days of the evaluation award and after planning and enhancement sites have been chosen. During this period the applicant may be asked to meet with an OJJDP-appointed focus group to review potential evaluation designs and outcome measures. However, for purposes of preparing this proposal, applicants should carefully review the sections of this solicitation that pertain to the planning and enhancement grants.

OJJDP further recommends that applicants consider the possibility of extending evaluation activities to assessment centers beyond the sites that will receive awards under this solicitation. If feasible, applicants should discuss how they would enlist the cooperation of other sites, the criteria for site selection, and the way incorporation of these sites would enhance the evalua-tion design. If the applicant already has obtained cooperation agreements from any sites, letters of commitment should be submitted with the application.

The tasks of this project consist of the following:

Products:

  1. The evaluation grantee is required to submit after the first 90 days of the project period a report that describes in detail an evaluation research design and a rationale for such design. In addition, this report shall specify what types of measures will be used, what data collection methods will be employed, and what will be learned. The report is subject to OJJDP approval.

  2. The evaluation grantee is required to submit an Interim Evaluation Report at the end of the first 12 months of the project.

  3. The evaluation grantee is required to submit a Final Evaluation Report no later than 60 days following the end of the second project year. This report should include at a minimum an analysis of all data collected (process and outcome) and the recommen-dations for communities operating or considering the implementation of a CAC. These recommendations should address the issues described in this solicitation and provide a mechanism for continuous CAC self-assessment.

  4. The grantee is required to submit a Research Summary with the Final Evaluation Report, which will assist OJJDP in disseminating valuable CAC information to the field. Grantees should obtain a current OJJDP Research Summary to be used as a format guide.

Eligibility Requirements: Applications are invited from public agencies and private nonprofit agencies, organizations and institutions that have experience with this type of research and evaluation. Applicants must demonstrate this experience and discuss their knowledge of the community assessment center concept, as described below under "Selection Criteria."

Selection Criteria: Applicants will be rated according to the criteria outlined below.

Problem(s) To Be Addressed (15 points)

Applicants must demonstrate a clear and thorough understanding of the problems addressed by community assessment centers, the potential obstacles to implementing the CAC, and the complexities of multisite evaluations.

Goals and Objectives (15 points)

Applicants must define relevant goals and objectives for the evaluation process. Goals and objectives may be similar to or expand upon OJJDP's goals for this program as outlined earlier in this solicitation.

Project Design (25 points)

Applicants must use their knowledge of the problem to propose a potential evaluation research design or designs. The design(s) should be sound, feasible, and capable of achieving the goals and objectives of this program. Applicants must also sufficiently address the Program Strategy, including Tasks I III as listed above.

Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)

Applicants' management structure and staffing must be adequate and appropriate for the successful implementation and completion of the project. Applicants must include a workplan that identifies responsible individuals, their time commitment, major tasks, and milestones. Additionally, applicants must document evidence of the organization's ability to conduct the project successfully. Organizational and staff experience with similar evaluation research must be documented with a specific focus on experience with multisite and multisystemic evalua-tions. The applicant must demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively and effectively with practitioners in resolving design, data collection and analysis issues, and other requirements of the project. Staff resumes must be included in the application.

Budget (10 points)

Applicants must provide a proposed budget that is complete, detailed, reasonable, allowable, and cost-effective in relation to the activities to be undertaken.

Award Period: The project will be 24 months.

Award Amount: The award amount for the 24-month project period will be up to $300,000.

Delivery Instructions: All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 1600 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301 251 5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, you must clearly write "Evaluating Community Assessment Centers."

Due Date: Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. EDT on September 3, 1996.

Contact: For further information call Eric Peterson, Program Manager, Research and Program Development Division, 202-307-5929, or send an e-mail inquiry to [email protected].

Community Assessment Center Training and Technical Assistance

Goal: To assist CAC planning and enhancement grant sites with the provision and/or facilitation of training and technical assistance on various issues related to CAC planning, development, and implementation.

Objectives: The objectives of this initiative are:

  1. To assist CAC planning and enhancement grantees in achieving their stated goals and objectives.

  2. To equip the selected jurisdictions with training and technical assistance resources necessary for CAC development, enhancement, and sustainability.

  3. To provide training and technical assistance on the critical issues regarding developing and implementing a CAC.

Program Strategy: It is expected that the selected Community Assessment Center Training and Technical Assistance (TA) provider will be optimally familiar with community assessment center (CAC) operations. In any case, it is expected that the selected provider will review literature on assessment centers and literature related to the CAC components and conduct a number of site visits to existing centers. The provider is also expected to develop a technical manual to be used as a TA tool. The manual will describe essential CAC components, various operating procedures, and principles. The training/TA grantee will also develop a site TA protocol to guide onsite assistance with CAC planning, development, and enhancement.

Consistent with the above summary of the CAC Training and TA project, the applicant for this award should address the following essential tasks: