ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is the timetable for reporting for Title V? The first performance measure report for Title V covers January 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005. The due date for States to submit performance measure reports to OJJDP is November 30, 2005. All future annual performance measure reports from States will cover 12 months (from October 1 to September 30), with reports due to OJJDP on November 30.
What is the timetable for reporting for Formula Grants? The Formula Grants reporting period will begin on April 1, 2005. The Federal fiscal year will be the reporting period. However, for the first year, the Formula Grants reporting period will begin on April 1, 2005. It will end on September 30, 2005. Data reports will be due to OJJDP on December 30, 2005. In all subsequent years, the reporting period will begin on October 1 and end on September 30.
Do subgrantees need to submit data for each indicator in the purpose area(s) under which they are funded? No. Subgrantees are required to report on all mandatory and two non-mandatory output and two non-mandatory outcome measures. However, for some Core Requirements and JJ Systems Improvement program areas, less than two mandatory and non-mandatory output and outcome measures are available. Therefore, for the Core Requirements and JJ System Improvement program areas, we have changed the guidance to read, “It is mandatory to report on all of the bold output measures and bold short-term and long-term outcome measures, two non-mandatory output measures, and two non-mandatory outcome measures, when available.”

Should State staff select the indicators or let the subgrantees do so? Either approach is fine. Some States prefer to focus on selected program areas or outcome areas. Similarly, States may have subgrantees enter data themselves or may enter data on behalf of their subgrantees.
How should the State report if it has multiple years of funding open? The State will complete a separate report for each funding year. The data collection tool will aggregate the data by award year and generate a report. The analysis will be conducted by OJJDP contract staff.
The reporting periods do not match the subgrant periods, so how can subgrantees be expected to show progress? Data will be aggregated at the Federal level, so there should be a leveling out across subgrantees whose performance is exaggerated or minimized solely because of the reporting period. In addition, there will be the capability, over time, to account for the reporting period as well as the entire grant period so that OJJDP will be able to analyze and report the data either by total project period or by reporting period.
What if subgrantees' goals do not match the Federal goals for a particular program area? That is okay. Subgrantees can have their own local goals, as long as they have measurable objectives and do not conflict with the Federal guidance outlined in the Formula Grants or Title V programs. With regard to selecting performance indicators, these subgrantees should be conducting activities similar to those outlined by the program area. This will guide them to the correct outputs (i.e., data used to demonstrate the implementation of grantee activities). From there they should select the performance indicators that best fit their expected outcomes. This is the case even if the outcomes measured by the performance indicators are not the same as the subgrantees' primary outcomes of interest.
Do existing subgrantees have to use these performance measures? Yes, include all active subgrants as of the beginning of the reporting period. Only exclude those subgrants that are expiring (i.e., no more possibility of renewal) in 5 months or less from the beginning of the reporting period.
What if a subgrantee changes program areas during a single reporting period? Subgrantees do not need to report on program areas that they worked under for less than 30 days. If subgrantees have 30 or more days in more than one program area, they should report for each program area.
What if we have continuing subgrantees that may not show any change on the indicators during the reporting period? Data from grantees will be aggregated at the State level and again at the Federal level. Some variations will be "washed out" in the aggregation process. In addition, the data received will be analyzed by OJJDP in several ways. There will be some analysis of change over time (e.g., are systems getting better because of Formula Grants or Title V funding?). There will also be analysis regarding whether systems are maintaining good performance. Data showing that system performance is good according to recognized benchmarks but also showing no change in system performance will still be valuable to OJJDP.
What options are available for reporting the data? Data will be reported on a to-be-designated site maintained by an OJJDP contractor and also submitted as an attachment on GMS.

What if Formula Grants or Title V funds only a small part of a larger project? Subgrantees will have to try to disaggregate the activity and outcomes of activities funded through Formula Grants or Title V in their reporting to the State.
Will there be repercussions for States that do not show “adequate” performance? The performance data will not be used by OJJDP to reward or penalize States. Instead, the data will be used to show Congress what is being accomplished nationally with Formula Grants or Title V funds, and whether the Federal Formula Grants or Title V programs are fulfilling their missions. However, states are expected to use this feedback to adjust its administration of Formula Grants and/or Title V funds to improve program performance.
Do States with Native American pass-through funds have to choose the Native American program area? Yes. The Native American Pass-Through Program specifies that a proportion of each state's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention formula grants program funding be made available to fund programs for Indian tribes. The tribal allocation provides funds to Indian tribes to perform law enforcement functions pertaining to the custody of children. Areas receiving funding include police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime and delinquency; apprehension of criminal and delinquency offenders; and activities of adult and juvenile corrections, probation, or parole authorities.
How do states with a large number of grants less than $10,000 develop performance measures (urban and rural)? States are required to collect performance measures on awards less than $10,000. Based on the outcome of the June 15, 2005 conference call the following recommendations were made that will help facilitate the performance measurement collection process:

- Take advantage of the PM technical assistance and on-site training for your subgrantees
- Utilize the PM website to download forms and information that will assist your subgrantees in
   collecting the necessary data
- For subgrantees who do not have computers, provide paper copies of forms that they can fill   out and send back to you
- Address data collection issues and work with your subgrantees so that they can incorporate   data collection mechanisms that will ensure you receive the data
- Be creative and if necessary have subgrantee staff or state staff responsible for collecting    and collating the data
- To avoid confusion, give subgrantees only the measures to which they will need to collect   data. The forms that are available on the website were posted in a manner so that they can    be saved and the necessary modifications made
Under the DCTAT system for JABG, baseline data are required for all performance measures. Will this also be the case for the Title V and Formula Grants reporting system?
Yes. The first full report will be the baseline.
Will states be able to view subgrantees' data for their own evaluation purposes? Yes. The reporting tool (yet to be developed) will include a feature that permits states to review subgrantees’ data for quality assurance and other purposes. The process will be similar to the JABG DCTAT reporting tool.

Why use arrest or juvenile court contact to measure recidivism rather than other access points? Recidivism or reoffending is generally understood as a return to crime. While there is no commonly accepted measure of recidivism, it is generally measured at one of four access points in the juvenile justice process: arrest, intake, adjudication, or incarceration. While the preferred performance measurement for reoffending is arrest, referral to juvenile court intake is also an acceptable measure of reoffending. These various measures have many advantages, but each also has disadvantages. Arrest may identify youth who were later released by the police, the charges dismissed by the courts, or youth found not guilty at an adjudication hearing. Intake can over-represent the number of youth brought before the court more so than arrest because cases can be referred to court intake by a number of sources besides law enforcement agencies, such as social service agencies, schools, parents, probation officers, and victims. Adjudication does not take into account the results of plea-bargaining and insufficient evidence. Incarceration typically includes the more serious crimes and over-represents offenders with lengthy criminal histories. Other important factors include the seriousness of the new charge and the duration of follow-up. Finally, some observers argue that a reliance on "official" measures of crime to assess recidivism is altogether misleading because these measures miss the many crimes that escape detection by law enforcement. The Formula Grants performance measure of reoffending allows the grantee to use either arrest, juvenile court referral, or self-report.
Subgrantees do not have access to police or court records. How can subgrantees collect and report these statistics? Subgrantees will need to develop data sharing relationships with law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts, schools, child welfare agencies and others that have needed performance measurement outcome data. Interagency agreements, commonly known as Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or letters of commitment need to be developed. Such agreements specify the types of data that can be shared between agencies, the conditions under which the data can be shared, security of records, dissemination, and retention/destruction of data and records. For excellent examples of model interagency agreements, see Appendix D in OJJDP's Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs (NCJ163705).
What if subgrantees collect additional data? That is fine, but grantees should not submit such data to OJJDP. The only data that OJJDP requests from grantees relate specifically to the list of performance measures.
What if the States want additional data from subgrantees that are not included on the list of performance indicators? That is fine, but grantees should not submit such data to OJJDP. The only data that OJJDP requests from grantees relate specifically to the list of performance measures.
Can we modify existing data to fit OJJDP's needs? Only if the existing data will exactly match the requested data. Data that are similar to the requested data, but not an exact match, cannot be aggregated by OJJDP with the remaining data.
Do subgrantees need to collect and submit community-level data? No. States are collecting data from their subgrantees about the activities paid for by Formula Grants or Title V funds.
The type of youth in these programs is often transient and difficult to track. Please clarify follow-up tracking system requirements. While collecting data on outcomes is essential to demonstrate the success of a Federal program, it is important to acknowledge the significant challenge that subgrantees face in obtaining data to measure performance for programs of this kind. The tracking of services to individuals is a very difficult task. For this reason, Federal staff have provided tools and tips (i.e., locator cards, reminder cards, Excel spreadsheets, etc.) to States and subgrantees in tracking youth and reporting findings. For example, to locate participants to administer the follow-up survey, it is often useful to arrange for a locator form to be completed at admission and sent home periodically during the program. The locator has names and contact information for the parents/guardian or someone who will always know the whereabouts of the participant. Postage-paid reminder cards can be sent prior to the follow-up to remind them that they will be contacted shortly and request a notification of address changes. In addition, many of the required performance measures use archival data, such as “number of participants who reoffend,” that can be obtained from police records or court data, without actually locating and surveying each youth.
Does OJJDP expect subgrantees to use sampling procedures for purposes of reporting on the performance measures for Title V and Formula Grants? No. OJJDP does not expect subgrantees to use sampling procedures. Nor does OJJDP expect subgrantees to locate every single youth served. Not even the best researcher can expect a 100% response rate. Instead, OJJDP expects subgrantees to undertake their best efforts to locate as many participants as possible. The reporting mechanism will include a coverage factor (similar to that used in the Uniform Crime Reports) that is based on estimates that account for missing data. The lower the coverage factor, the greater the likelihood that the estimates do not accurately reflect the activities of the program.
What does “seen” at juvenile court for a new delinquent offense mean? “Seen” at juvenile court is equivalent to an intake decision that results in the case either being handled informally at the intake level or being petitioned and scheduled for an adjudicatory or transfer hearing (see Glossary of Terms).
In the DMC program area, one performance measure calls for measuring the number of agencies with improved data collection systems. What agencies does this refer to? Agencies that supply data for the nine juvenile justice contact points (juvenile arrests, referral to the courts, etc.). Such agencies can be public entities (e.g., police, courts) and/or private contract providers. For example, if the correctional facilities in a state are run by contractors, data on cases resulting in confinement in secure juvenile correctional facilities would be provided by contract providers. Therefore, court, law enforcement, and service providers, be they public agencies or private contractors, may show improved data collection systems.
Can Title V funding be used to fund primary prevention programs that target a general population of youth? No. According to the Title V Program Guidelines, Title V funds are to be used to provide delinquency prevention programs for at-risk children to prevent them from entering into the juvenile justice system, as well as early intervention programs for early offenders (e.g., first time and non-violent offenders) to keep them from further involvement in delinquency.
How do I know which program area to choose for a DMC initiative? For example, if my objective is to reduce the number and percent of minority youth referred to the juvenile justice system (at decision points arrest/referral) and the activity is mentoring, which program area should I use? You should use DMC. Programs that have a specific goal of impacting the disproportionate representation of a specific racial/ethnic group at a specific juvenile justice system contact point(s) should use the performance measures of the DMC program area. Prevention and intervention programs in communities with high minority concentrations or for a specific racial ethnic group without the explicit objective of reducing minority overrepresentation at certain juvenile justice system contact point(s), should be considered as addressing other program areas.
If a subgrantee's activities cover more than one program area, can the subgrantee submit performance measurement data on more than one program area? No. The subgrantee submits data on one program area. If the program also serves another program area, the to-be-developed reporting system will allow designation of a secondary program area.
If a Title V subgrantee makes awards to one or more subgrantees in more than one program area, how should this be reported? The subgrantees should aggregate the sub -subgrantees' data across program areas and report in these program areas. The to-be-developed reporting tool will have a question on the number of sub-subgrantees included in the reporting period.
How do you measure the outcomes of youth who do not exit the program during the project period? Youth who are enrolled in long-term programs and do not exit the program during the project period should be assessed using short-term outcome measures.
How can I produce an unduplicated count of youth served? The number of youth served for a reporting period should count the number of new admissions to a program during a specified reporting period plus the number of current program youth carried over from the previous reporting period. For example, during the first quarter of the initial fiscal year, the number served should be determined by counting participants who are carried over from the previous reporting period (from the last fiscal year, if applicable), plus new participants who began service during the first quarter (new admissions). For each of the second to fourth quarters, include (a) number carried over from the previous quarter (i.e., the number of youth served minus the number of youth completed or terminated in the previous quarter), and (b) new admissions during the current quarter. In calculating the 3-year summary, the total number of youth served is the number of participants carried over from the year previous to the first fiscal year, plus all new admissions during the 3 reporting fiscal years. A sample Excel spreadsheet containing formulas has been designed to facilitate subgrantees’ reporting unduplicated counts of total youth by quarter, by Federal fiscal year, and a 3-Federal fiscal year summary. The Number Served Reporting Spreadsheet (click here) is located on the Performance Measurement Web site at http://www.dsgonline.com/Program_Logic_Model/sd_training.htm.
Will the logic models and grid charts be available in Word? Yes. All logic models and grid charts are now posted in PDF and in Word on the Performance Measurement Web site at http://dsgonline.com/Program_Logic_Model/fg_pm.htm and at http://dsgonline.com/Program_Logic_Model/titlev_pm.htm.

Who can I contact if I have questions? Your State Representative should be your primary contact. Additionally, you can e-mail Wandra Simmons, at wandra.simmons@usdoj.gov for questions about Formula Grants performance measurement reporting and Heidi Hsia at heidi.hsia@usdoj.gov for Title V.
If the Compliance Monitor is funded through Planning and Administration (P&A) funds, how do we report on his/her activities through this system? The Compliance Monitor’s activities should be reported under the appropriate Core Requirements program area. We will try to have an electronic reporting system indicate that the cost for the Compliance Monitor comes from P&A.
Do we report on the Core Requirements if we’re not funding programs in these areas? No, it is not necessary to report on the Core Requirements if you are not funding programs in that area.
Our Native American programming is used for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO). In most instances, the mandatory outcome measures established for Program Area #22 (Native American Programs) do not apply. Is it okay to report those funds under Program Area #08 (DSO)? Choose the program area that has the most applicable outputs and outcomes that measure what you are trying to achieve. We will try to have an electronic reporting system reflect that programs may address more than one program area.
Will the five listed areas in the Title V GMS screen on the Subgrantee Information Form reporting budget page change to accommodate the new 18 program areas stated in training? Thank you for pointing this out. However, making such a change in GMS will take an extended period of time. Fortunately, leaving the form as it will not affect our ability to implement the performance measurement reporting system.
What if subgrantees collect data on more than the required number of performance measures? Do you want states to report on as many performance measures as possible or only the required ones? Subgrantees (or grantees) can report on more if they use the approved OJJDP measures. Some subgrantees (or grantees) may want to collect data on more performance measures outside of the approved OJJDP performance measurement system for their own purposes. They can do so but should not report them to states and OJJDP because that data cannot be aggregated on a national basis.
Should a state incorporate performance measures in all of their future Formula Grants applications? Yes, states are required to include performance indicators for their priority program areas in their Formula Grants applications. The Formula Grants Application Kit specifies that performance indicators must be addressed for each program area. “Performance indicators are data/information that will be collected to measure whether the objectives have been achieved. Therefore, they must be developed and included with each program objective.”
Do we collect data from the time that an individual leaves the program or from the time of the end of the program? For example, with long-term outcome measures, do we collect information 6-12 months after each individual leaves the program or collect information from the same starting point 6-12 months after the end of the program regardless of the fact that participants may have different discharge dates? Same question with short-term measures, is it when the individual is discharged or when the program as a whole ends that we base the data on? For long-term outcome measures, data should be collected 6-12 months after a youth leaves the program. For short-term outcome measures, data should be collected when an individual completes or leaves the program. This guideline is applicable for all programs where youth begin and end program participation at different times and those program activities that have the same start and end dates for all participants (e.g., a 6-week training curriculum).
In regards to Title V, if a state decides to automatically insert only the delinquency prevention performance measures into the RFP, then a community responding to the RFP that has identified a need for a child abuse and neglect program may not be able to address their issue. In this case, what should a state do? We suggest that states do not pre-select performance measures for Title V applicants because applicant communities will propose prevention strategies based on their specific needs as evidenced by their community assessments. The RFP can refer potential subgrantees to the OJJDP Performance Measurement Web site under the Title V logic models and grid charts to ensure they pick measures that match their programmatic needs and can be reported in the performance measurement reporting system. During pre-award training, potential applicants can be guided to choose those performance measures for which data may be collected with relative ease.
Regarding the output measure “Number of planning activities conducted,” does this apply to meeting with clients and parents or does it address staffing a particular client (either internally or different organizations)? Planning activities are not related to clients but refer to inter- and intra-organizational planning and development meetings involving program agency staff.
Regarding the outcome measure, “Number and percent of program youth who offend or reoffend,” do only new charges apply or would technical violations of probation conditions that are not for a new offense but could result in significant sanctions, be considered? Technical violations do not apply to this measure. When applicable to the program area, technical violations are reported in their own measure that reads, “Number of program youth charged with a formal probation violation.”
What is the amount of time following the conclusion of grant funding that the program/project is responsible for data collection? The subgrantee will be responsible to collect 6-12 months of long-term outcome data for youth who were active at the time the project funding ended. It is advisable for projects to develop budgets in advance that include funding for this follow-up activity.
If a project focuses on substance abuse and they choose this as the mandatory measure, can they then choose another targeted behavior measure such as school attendance as a non-mandatory measure if they also provide tutoring services? Yes. They can choose any other targeted behaviors as a non-mandatory measure. The list of other targeted behaviors can be found on the outcomes grid chart.
How do you measure youth-related outputs and outcomes if your program is more of a strategy and does not directly serve youth (i.e., DMC and gender specific). When a state or locality is addressing DMC and gender specific services as a strategy to effectuate systems change at a policy level, measure the system level output and outcome measures that apply (e.g., # of contributing factors determined from assessment studies, # of state/local agencies reporting improved data collection systems, #/% of program staff with increased knowledge of program).
Under which program area would research programs be measured? We have developed performance measures that will apply to research efforts.These measures are located under Program Area #19 (Juvenile Justice System Improvement).The revised logic model has been posted on the Performance Measurement website.
Do existing Title V subgrantees whose programs end prior to May 1, 2005 and are not requesting renewal need to report their performance? No. Based on the current timeline, states’ Title V Grants performance measurement data collection begins on January 1, 2005. Subgrants ending before May 1, 2005, that have no possibility of renewal, would not need to collect performance measurement data as they are expiring (i.e., no more possibility of renewal) in 5 months or less from the beginning of the reporting period. Refer to FAQ #8 for further clarification on this issue.
How should we report on projects that might have been initially reported in the 2003 annual report, but that extended over into 2004? Should we report on them since they were still active in 2004? And how should we represent the funding amount awarded? If the award was extended for three months beyond the original year, should we divide the award amount into 5 equal amounts- one for each reporting quarter that the project was running. The state should report data for every year that the subgrant was active (e.g., if the grant was awarded in FY2003 and still active into FY2004 then data would be reported for both years). In the development of the performance measurement reporting database OJJDP plans to indicate the subgrant award amounts at the first time the subgrant performance measurements are reported.
Program Area #19, Juvenile Justice System Improvement, has outcomes that refer to program and non-program staff. D o you have a definition for "Program Staff" and "Non-Program Staff"? Program staff are employees (full-time or part-time) and/or volunteers of the JJ funded program. Non-program staff are personnel such as representatives from law enforcement, courts, referral agencies, or community members not employed by the program who, for example, have participated in a statewide conference or training.
For program area #34, Youth Courts, does "program youth" refer to youth who serve as attorneys, bailiffs, and clerks or does it refer to the youth offenders we case manage? Program youth pertains to all youth referred to participate in the program (the offenders). Do not count youth who volunteer in the program.
For program area #34, Youth Courts, does "volunteer advocate” refer to youth who serve as attorneys, bailiffs, and clerks at our youth court? Yes.
For program area #34, Youth Courts, to whom does a “defendant” refer - the youth offenders? Yes.
For program area #34, Youth Courts, with "victims/defendants" do we choose one or the other or do we need to gather data on both? Thank you for pointing this out. The outcome measure has been changed to two separate measures one for victims and one for defendants. A revised logic model and grid chart have been posted.
Could you explain what the "number of youth charged with a formal probation violation" refers to? This refers to youth on probation who have violated the conditions of that probation and are thus formally charged by the juvenile court. Exclude those who violate probation who are not given a formal ruling.
For a project that involves several months of residential treatment followed by a six-month aftercare period, what is the “end of the program” for the purpose of collecting the 6-12 month follow-up data? Does that period begin when the youth completes the intensive service or when the six-month aftercare is over? Because the program consists of two parts, "end of the program" refers to when the youth completes the total program which, in this case, would be when the youth completes the aftercare component.
Long-term outcome measure #12 and #13 for DMC ask for number of contact points reporting reduction in disproprotionality at the State or the local level, respectively. Are the measures looking for changes at the State and local levels in the "current" and "previous" periods? Because the most recent state data I have lags behind the reporting period, I have no data describing the "current period". What should I do? Both these outcome measures look for change at the state and local level noted in the data reported for "current" reporting period (which are the most recently available data) from the data reported for the "previous" reporting periods (which were the most recently available data at that time of the report). Time lags frequently exist in data availability and different degrees of lags exist from one state to another. Therefore, we do not use the term "current data" in DMC data collection. Instead, in updating DMC data, we ask for "most recently available data".

Revised 1/6/06