Title V

Authorized by the JJDPA, Title V is the original, and still one of the only, federal programs specifically designed to prevent delinquency at the local level. To ensure a solid return on investment, the Title V program prioritizes the use of evidence-informed approaches, requires coordination with a statewide plan to ensure strategic use of resources and leverages the commitment and resources of state and local jurisdictions by requiring that the state and local applicant provide a 50% match.

Since FY 2004, between 53% and 100% of Title V funds have been carved out for non-JJDPA programs, leaving only $5 million or less to be allocated among 56 states and territories for delinquency prevention. That means that in real terms, for the FY 2013 cycle each state and territory will receive $0 for delinquency prevention – as opposed to more than $300,000 if there were no set-asides. 

Title V Success around the Country:

Tennessee: In TN, Title V funds were allocated to two programs serving 59 school-aged youth. Ninety percent of youth in the afterschool program had no school offenses and 97% of children in the kindergarten program were more prepared for school.

Pennsylvania: PA used Title V funds to serve 195 youth through Functional Family Therapy (FFT); 140 youth successfully completed the program, 75% improved their attendance and 64% improved their academic performance.

Iowa: IA used Title V funds to support JDAI sites in three local jurisdictions. From 2007-2010, these sites have reduced the detention rate for Caucasian youth by 30% and for African American youth by 46% - the most significant and sustained reduction in juvenile minority overrepresentation rates in Iowa in 20 years.

Utah: UT created a youth services/receiving center in Tooele County (a growing rural, suburban county with few youth serving organizations). Referrals came from law enforcement (20%), self-referral or walk-in (35%) and counseling (32%). The program provided crisis intervention counseling and on-site teacher and law-enforcement drop-off services for 361 youth, with only 12% offending or re-offending during the grant period.

North Dakota: ND funded two subgrantees to provide professional assessment, mental health screening, counseling, anger management training and parent support to families of youth suspended or expelled from school: 95% of youth returned to school following the suspension; 80% reported significant improvement in managing anger and behavior; each program helped increase school attendance and success by 93% and 70% respectively; and 97% of youth had no subsequent contact with the juvenile justice system for one year.

Kansas: KS used its Title V allocation to serve 182 youth through girls’ empowerment, teen court and conflict resolution programs. Programs were successfully completed by 82% of youth, with 87% demonstrating short-term positive changes in behavior and 79% demonstrating positive long-term changes in behavior.

South Carolina: SC funded the Dream a Dream program in Conway to target at-risk youth aged 5 to 12 in two neighborhoods. Youth were exposed to a 90-120 minute after-school mentoring program that offers homework assistance, development in social and physical skills and field trips/extracurricular activities. In one year, one neighborhood experienced a 35% decrease in juvenile arrests and service calls; the other experienced a 31% decrease.