White House Task Force Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction: Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth

Chapter 2: Better Management: Streamlining the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth

Chapter 3: Better Accountability: Producing Results, Not Just Promises

Chapter 4: Better Connections: Engaging Youth and Families

Chapter 5: Give Priority to the Neediest Youth: Caring for Special Target Populations

Appendices

Endnotes

Executive Summary

The complexity of the problems faced by disadvantaged youth is matched only by the complexity of the traditional Federal response to those problems. Both are confusing, complicated, and costly.

Ideally, we want the families and communities of young people to be able to supply all that they need-love, a secure childhood, adequate housing, access to health care, a good education, discipline of character, a sense of personal responsibility, and a commitment to their communities and their country. Most young Americans are raised in this kind of environment, and they grow up to be healthy, responsible, and productive citizens.

But there are children who have the same dreams for their own futures, whose daily realities make those dreams seem forever out of reach. The Federal government plays a significant role in helping to make up for those daily deficits for millions of disadvantaged youth.

Because of his commitment to the Nation's youth and to improving the effectiveness of Federal programs in general, the President created the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth on December 23, 2002. [1] He directed the Task Force to develop for his consideration a comprehensive Federal response to the problems of youth failure, under existing authorities and programs, with a focus on enhanced agency accountability and effectiveness.

Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth

Our comprehensive Federal response begins with our Vision for Youth in the form of a national youth policy framework. This is an outcome-focused approach designed to express what we as a country want for disadvantaged youth and for all children. Namely, we want them to grow up:

Healthy and Safe
Ready for Work, College, and Military Service
Ready for Marriage, Family, and Parenting
Ready for Civic Engagement and Service

Our national youth policy framework is designed to ensure that programs we invest in meet one or more of these four goals.

The Task Force was organized into committees around these four guiding principles. Each committee was charged with developing recommendations to improve Federal disadvantaged youth programs under existing authorities. While they were each assigned to review a different subset from among the 339 Federal youth programs that we identified, each of the committees ultimately came to similar conclusions: The best way to get the greatest outcomes for disadvantaged youth from the significant Federal funds invested was to focus on these four goals:

Better Management
Better Accountability
Better Connections
Give Priority to the Neediest Youth

Better Management:
Streamlining the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth

The Task Force developed a series of recommendations to address problematic management and coordination issues regarding the hundreds of Federal youth programs we identified. The recommendations in this section address some important issues that we discussed in our April, 2003 report, including problems with overlap and duplication as well as mission fragmentation. To begin to address these problems, we present a proposal for a Disadvantaged Youth Initiative, followed by recommendations on mission alignment, interagency coordination, and improving the Federal grants system.

Create a Disadvantaged Youth Initiative

Through the work discussed in our April, 2003 preliminary report, the Task Force identified the following issues that need to be addressed properly and as comprehensively as possible in order to increase the quality of Federal disadvantaged youth programs:

Reduce/eliminate overlap and duplication of services;
Focus policies and resources on Administration priorities;
Maximize the use of expertise that agencies already have;
Increase collaborative efforts;
Keep public health messages to youth consistent across agencies and programs;
Bring programs into the agency with whose mission they are most closely aligned;
Improve the quantity and quality of program evaluations;
Have a unified definition of "best practices;"
Develop a unified research agenda to identify best practices;
Encourage the development and use of similar performance measures for similar programs.

To properly address these issues, to help ensure that disadvantaged youth grow up to be healthy, productive adults, and to maximize the return on our Federal investment, the Task Force proposes the creation of a Disadvantaged Youth Policy Initiative, to be coordinated through the Executive Office of the President, to do the following:

Develop and coordinate policy, within existing policy processes and structures, to address the needs of disadvantaged youth;

Maximize interagency collaboration to use the significant expertise within specific Federal agencies;

Coordinate Federal research so we can fund programs that produce results that help disadvantaged youth;

Find and elevate models of "what works," through collaboration and coordination with existing agency structures, and help replicate them nationwide.

MISSION ALIGNMENT

Through the process of identifying the 339 Federal youth programs, we encountered several programs that were located in departments whose mission did not provide a clear and compelling reason for locating them within that agency. Our recommendations below reflect the belief that, clearly, the youth programs belong in an agency whose mission more closely matches theirs.

Move YouthBuild to the Department of Labor and Better Align Youth ChalleNGe with the Department of Labor

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Labor assume administrative responsibility for the YouthBuild program, currently administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and work with the Department of Defense on better aligning the Youth ChalleNGe program with other youth programs funded by DOL. Each program is, at its core, an employment and training program for disadvantaged youth, and will benefit from administrative oversight in DOL within the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), since the strategic goals and mission of that department and agency align directly with the goals and mission of each program.

Move the Gang Resistance, Education and Training Program to OJJDP

The Task Force recommends that the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, or "G.R.E.A.T.," currently housed in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, be transferred within the Department of Justice to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Office of Justice Programs. This transfer would include technical assistance and other support resources, as well as the grants budget, and the basic content of the strategic plan. It will link G.R.E.A.T. into the many OJJDP programs designed to prevent gangs and violence and promote constructive behavior among young people.

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Interagency coordination should be accomplished around topic areas or special target populations. Where issue areas warrant the attention of multiple agencies, we recommend that an interagency group be created to ensure communication, coordination, and collaboration. The Federal government should also help facilitate interagency collaboration at the state and local levels as well, particularly since these levels of government receive the bulk of the Federal funds for youth-serving programs. The following are two examples of recommendations that support this approach. There is an additional recommendation regarding interagency coordination in Chapter 5.

Improve Coordination of Mentoring Programs

The Task Force recommends the creation of a Federal Interagency Workgroup on Mentoring to engage in a variety of activities identified in the report that would aid the coordination and collaboration of all mentoring programs and activities supported by Federal agencies.

Support State and Local Community Planning Process

The Task Force recommends that the relevant agencies contribute existing funds to provide interagency support for state and local government efforts to assess youth-related policies, programs, funding streams, indicators, and data in order to create and implement strategic plans for coordinated investment of Federal, state, and local dollars to improve outcomes for youth.

IMPROVE THE FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM

The current Federal grants process is in need of improvements to increase its value to these specific audiences: potential grantees, Federal program officers, and policymakers within the executive and legislative branches. This issue is critically important to those who care about disadvantaged youth, for the more they can take advantage of the resources of the Federal government and maximize their effectiveness, the more likely it is that there are going to be better outcomes for the youth who need help the most.

The Task Force has developed a series of recommendations to improve this current system. Ideally, a searchable database of all past, present, and future grant activity would be created, which could then become the comprehensive database on discretionary grant spending in the United States. From our point of view, this will require a series of steps, which should include the following:

Modernize the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Task Force recommends that the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) format be revised and updated to fit the way grants are currently administered. This would enable potential grantees as well as policymakers to better track grant opportunities and related activities within youth-serving agencies.

Create a Centrally Available and Improved Grants Database

The Task Force recommends that the CFDA should be linked to various other databases which are currently available, and also made accessible through Grants.gov, the government-wide e-grants portal website.

Improve the FAADS Database

The Task Force recommends the following ways to improve the Federal Assistant Awards Data System (FAADS). First, include the EIN (employer identification number) as well as the DUNS [2] (Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., number) of each grant recipient. Both are unique identifiers and are required by statute and OMB policy to be submitted in applications for funding. Second, provide the key to the Federal Award Identifier Numbers provided by each agency so that the code can be understood by all. These changes will allow all users to identify specific grantees and determine which agencies and programs provided them with funds, and for what purposes.

Create a Resource Mapping Function for the Database

The Task Force recommends that grantees of all Federal youth-serving programs be required to provide the zip codes or GIS codes for all areas where they are providing services.

Research Eligibility of Faith-Based Grant Applicants

The Task Force recommends that the Department Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives review the data from our Federal Youth Programs Survey relating to the applicant eligibility of faith-based groups. The goal of these reviews is to determine the reasons for the reported apparent ineligibility of faith-based groups compared to nonprofit organizations, as reported by approximately half the Federal youth program managers. The Department Centers should then take any steps that they may determine are necessary to follow up with program officers within their agencies to ensure that it is clear that faith-based applicants are equally eligible to apply.

Better Accountability:
Producing Results, Not Just Promises

Government likes to begin things - to declare grand new programs and causes. But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters in the end is completion. Performance. Results. Not just making promises, but making good on promises. [3]

President George W. Bush

The public policy world of youth programs suffers from a credibility gap. While there is the will among the public to help young people address the many difficult problems they face, there is a lack of consensus as to how to do it successfully. Unfortunately, the Federal government has been ineffective in helping to close that gap in the public's mind. [4]

Through the last four decades, there has been growing Federal involvement and a rapidly increasing infusion of funds designed to address numerous problems of youth, including substance abuse, violence, teen pregnancy, hunger and nutrition, school failure, and workforce preparation. In Fiscal Year 2003 alone, the Federal government is spending $223.5 billion to help needy children and their families, focusing on these and related issues (see Appendix D). State and local governments and private groups will contribute billions more.

As the President has noted, the focus needs to be on achieving results. Part of the responsibility for this lack of focus on results lies in the fact that the Federal government has often made funding decisions without clear evidence that what it is attempting to do will actually work. Thus, public faith in the efficacy of social programs to successfully address youth failure has eroded. They wonder, what really works? How can we know? This is important because, as one researcher has noted, "even the most perfect solution, if there were such a creature, needs to be recognized and believed in, in order to be adopted as durable policy." [5]

This section of our report includes a number of recommendations providing a look at how the Federal government can strengthen its role in the area of research and evaluation of youth programs. With these recommendations, we call for the Federal government to develop and implement a coherent and comprehensive plan designed to identify with confidence and adopt those practices that will successfully help youth.

The focus of the Task Force here was in two areas, the importance of which should not be underestimated. First, we had broad consensus of the need to improve the Federal role in helping to understand what works. Second, we also recognized that with a Federal investment in youth-serving programs of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, we needed to firmly hold programs accountable for results showing that they actually achieve what they were designed to accomplish. This means that we need well-designed evaluations of current programs so that those not achieving their goals can be quickly discontinued and their resources diverted to other priority needs.

UNDERSTANDING WHAT WORKS

The Task Force has developed several recommendations aimed at improving the quality of the information we have about what works to improve youth outcomes. The first recommendation (in several parts) addresses our concern that we create a more consistent set of guidelines for assessing the quality of program evaluations across agencies. The second puts forth a road map for guiding the direction of future Federally supported research on youth programs, and the third offers a suggestion on improving national survey data collection.

Develop a Unified Protocol for Federal "What Works" Clearinghouses

The Task Force recommends that a committee of the relevant Federal agencies develop a consistent approach to the assessment of youth program and policy evaluations, including the development of protocols. Random assignment experiments are considered the "gold standard" of evaluation because they can most clearly attribute outcomes to interventions. The Task Force strongly recognizes this gold standard and believes those evaluations should be given the greatest weight in shaping what we know about what works. Because individual agencies have different needs, the protocols to be developed need not be identical, just sufficiently consistent so that materials and findings can be shared among agencies with relative ease.

Build a Rigorous and Unified Disadvantaged Youth Research Agenda

The Task Force recommends that a cross-agency research agenda based on large, randomized field trials be created and implemented to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth. The design of these field trials must be based on comprehensive, systematic reviews of previous trials, and supported within existing program resources.

Improve Data Collected on the Well-Being of Families

The Task Force recommends that the Federal government seek opportunities to improve the quality of data collected on families in the national data collection systems in order to better monitor the well-being of families, track problems, identify how populations are changing, and provide direction with agenda-setting.

HOLDING PROGRAMS ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS

Providing funds to grantees in order to support proven interventions does not in itself guarantee results. Youth programs must implement these programs correctly and must monitor their service delivery and program outcomes. Currently, similar youth programs rarely have similar performance measures in their Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) plans, and nearly half do not measure performance at all. [6] In this section we present recommendations for developing and implementing common youth program performance standards and measures. We suggest that these will serve as a starting point for discussion and consensus-building among various stakeholders. This significant process, once completed, will allow policymakers to compare the outcomes of similar programs, no matter which agency they are in. It would also facilitate considerations of program consolidation, redirection of resources, and elimination of ineffective programs, where appropriate. In the interest of improving our ability to document the results of Federal investments, we also offer recommendations on addressing earmarks, and implementing the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act in Department of Defense schools.

Develop Standards for Measuring Grantee Performance

The Task Force recommends the development of uniform standards for measuring grantee performance for all Federal agencies that manage youth-serving programs. While it outlines a process for developing and implementing standard measures, the Task Force understands this is an ambitious goal and will likely require a sustained effort over time, including pilot testing and incremental implementation.

Implement Grantee-Level Performance Measurement Guidelines

The Task Force recommends launching a major effort to work with applicants and programs over the next several years to strengthen the accountability and performance of organizations receiving Federal funds to operate disadvantaged youth programs. The Task Force believes an increased emphasis on performance measurement as both a program management tool and a means by which to communicate program impact will improve the effectiveness of youth-serving programs, while providing Federal agencies the necessary information to hold grantees accountable for results.

Conduct Rigorous Oversight of Earmarked Grantees

The Task Force opposes earmarks for youth programs because they significantly reduce accountability, and they exclude potentially higher quality projects that could otherwise successfully compete for funds. This weakens what should be a strong focus on proven, positive short-term and long-term results for children and youth. The Task Force recommends that each Department with earmarked youth programs use a vigorous, comprehensive oversight and accountability system to oversee these programs.

Implement No Child Left Behind in Department of Defense Schools

The President's landmark legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), provided a new focus on accountability for all of the Nation's children. School districts can no longer focus on average performance, they must now ensure that every subgroup, including disadvantaged students, is making significant progress toward proficiency. Thus, for the first time in our Nation's history, disadvantaged students will be of prime concern to school districts across America. This backdrop gives new leverage to Federal efforts to coordinate services for disadvantaged youth.

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Defense consider implementing select, relevant provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, in conjunction with the Department of Education. Specific recommendations for consideration include: bringing the DOD system into line with NCLB provisions regarding the pillars of Standards and Accountability and a Focus on What Works; ensuring that the DoDEA strategic plan focuses on improving student achievement, particularly in the core subjects of reading and language arts and math; working to become a model of international excellence by implementing instructional practices that are based on rigorous scientific research; and assessing current levels of parental input and design mechanisms to further increase parental participation within the context of the "Parent Empowerment" pillar of NCLB.

Better Connections:
Engaging Youth and Families

Research has shown that in order to ensure their healthy development, adolescents need caring adults in their lives; opportunities to learn marketable skills and maintain good health; and opportunities to contribute meaningfully to their communities and society. [7] Generally, American families and communities are doing a good job of addressing these youth needs and opportunities. We make several recommendations aimed at validating and building on the strengths that exist in most families and communities. The first recommendation is born from the knowledge that parents play a pivotal role in guiding their children's development and should be supported in that role. The next two recommendations are aimed at providing opportunities for young people to contribute through service, recognizing the value of the assets they bring to their communities and to the Nation.

Increase Parent Involvement in Federal Youth Programs

The Task Force recommends that any Federal program that serves disadvantaged youth should endeavor, when appropriate, to involve parents as much as possible in the program. This means including parents in planning stages and in any advisory groups, as well as in the program itself.

Design a Youth Service Initiative

The Task Force recommends that a youth service initiative be designed that would allow older youth (college age) to display leadership by providing opportunities for them to serve children living in high poverty areas of the United States.

Recruit Youth for Federal Grant Review Panels

The Task Force recommends that college youth be recruited and included as participants on Federal panels that review youth program grants, where feasible.

Give Priority to the Neediest Youth:
Caring for Special Target Populations

While the Federal government is spending billions of dollars to address the problems of youth, the problem is often that too many of these dollars are spread out among too many youth. Although these actions may appear to be preventive, in fact it typically leads to under-serving or never even engaging the youth who most need help-and who become society's most serious problems. Thus, we often see evaluations of youth programs that say the programs do not show much impact. One reason for this might be that the youth that needed to change were either not engaged, or not engaged sufficiently. At an aggregate level, the result is that the public and policymakers never see the kinds of significant improvement they want to see in the things that concern them: juvenile crime, school performance, drug use, and so forth. [8]

Public money should be spent on public problems [9] and targeted to where it is most needed, rather than on all youth, most of whom will grow up just fine without government help. With this view in mind, we begin a discussion that shall continue beyond the life of the Task Force regarding the identification of "special target populations" of youth. These special target populations would be those who represent areas of serious concern, and who carry disproportionately negative consequences for youth and their communities if not addressed. It is these groups named below, as well as others who will be identified in the future, who should be the primary targets of relevant disadvantaged youth programs.

Target Youth in Public Care

The Task Force recommends that the first designated special target pic expense. These are foster care youth (particularly those aging out of foster care) and juvenile justice youth. For both these groups, the Federal government and governments at other levels are serving in loco parentis, in place of the parents.

Target Kids at High Risk

The Task Force recommends that a second group of youth also be considered among the special target populations. This subgroup includes youth with a high number of factors putting them at risk for unproductive or publicly costly lives, such as children of incarcerated parents and migrant youth.

The following recommendations represent a case study showing how the problems of a "special target population" could begin to be addressed. We emphasize that the recommendations below represent merely the first, early steps of this type of effort. Much more remains to be done, but we are excited about the possibilities that future cross-agency collaborative efforts hold for these groups of particularly needy young people. We also note that we anticipate that other special target populations will be identified in the future.

Education of Foster Youth Demonstration Program

The Task Force recommends the creation of a program designed to improve the quality of education for school-age youth in foster care. The program would be established at three levels: Federal, state, and local. It would involve the appointment of a point of contact at the Department of Education to assist in providing awareness of the barriers faced by foster care youth to improving their educational success, and a plan to encourage that state and local school districts establish a similar position in their education departments. Funding for this program could come from the existing sources available to State Education Agencies and Local Education Agencies for disadvantaged youth. [10]

Federal Interagency Committee to Focus on Education Needs of Foster Youth

The Task Force recommends the establishment of a new, ongoing interagency committee which help improve Federal efforts to address the educational needs of youth in foster care. The committee should involve the appropriate representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration), and the Department of Education, and should plan to meet at least on a quarterly basis to ensure that the best efforts are put forth on the Federal level on behalf of these children.

Workforce Training and Education Services for Migrant Youth

The Task Force recommends the creation of a joint venture between the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Agriculture to develop a model program to provide workforce training and basic education services to out-of-school migrant youth ages 16-21.

This model would combine workforce development services, including job training activities, with basic education services designed for individuals with Limited English Proficiency, and would provide these youth with an integrated plan of services and activities designed to raise their educational skills and increase their employment opportunities.

Expand Mentoring Programs to Special Target Groups

The Task Force recommends that the newly-created Interagency Working Group on Mentoring seek opportunities to expand mentoring programs to provide support to young people in foster care and migrant youth.

Chapter 1:
Introduction: Our Aspirations for Disadvantaged Youth

The complexity of the problems faced by disadvantaged youth is matched only by the complexity of the traditional Federal response to those problems. Both are confusing, complicated, and costly.

Ideally, we want the families and communities of young people to be able to supply all that they need-love, a secure childhood, housing, health care, a good education, discipline of character, a sense of personal responsibility, and a commitment to their communities and their country. Most young Americans are raised in this kind of environment, and they grow up to be healthy, responsible and productive citizens.

But there are children who have the same dreams for their own futures, but whose daily realities make those dreams seem forever out of reach. The Federal government plays a significant role in helping to make up for those daily deficits for millions of disadvantaged youth. [11]

"Our goal must be to make sure that all children have the opportunity to learn and succeed," President Bush said in his National Child's Day Proclamation for 2002. "To achieve this, we must use the resources of our families, communities, schools and government to ensure that no child is left behind. [12]"

Because of his commitment to the Nation's youth and to improving the effectiveness of Federal programs in general, the President created the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth on December 23, 2002. [13] He directed the Task Force to develop for his consideration a comprehensive Federal response to the problems of youth failure, under existing authorities and programs, with a focus on enhanced agency accountability and effectiveness.

The Task Force begins this report with our vision for a national youth policy framework. This is an outcome-focused approach designed to proclaim those things that we as a country want for disadvantaged youth and for all children. Namely, we want them to grow up:

Healthy and Safe
Ready for Work, College, and Military Service
Ready for Marriage, Family, and Parenting
Ready for Civic Engagement and Service

Our national youth policy framework is designed to ensure that programs we invest in meet one or more of these four goals.

Our charge was to speak specifically to the Federal government's role in helping disadvantaged youth achieve these outcomes. Thus, for each of these four goals, we have laid out objectives, followed by some examples of the ways the Federal government plays a role in addressing these objectives. These are the basic objectives that should guide Federal programs when they address any or all of these goals.

Goal 1: Grow Up Healthy and Safe

While many trends in adolescent risk-taking are going in the right direction, risk-taking behaviors (illicit substance and tobacco use, violence and premature sexual relations) are still among the top causes of adolescent morbidity and mortality. Teens today are still taking far too many risks with their health and well-being. More than 2.6 million teens use illicit substances each month. More than 3 million youth, ages 12 to 17, are cigarette smokers, and everyday, more than 6,000 try smoking for the first time. About 14 percent of high school students smoke regularly. 29 percent of youth, ages 12 to 20, reported drinking alcohol in the month prior to the survey. In addition, one-third of high school students report having sexual relations in the previous three months, while 46 percent of high-schoolers have experienced sexual relations, putting themselves at risk for pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and emotional trauma. Some 135,132 unmarried girls under the age of 18 gave birth in 2001, long before they were ready to be responsible, married parents. [14]

Whatever their reasons for doing so, adolescents who engage in these behaviors suffer. Some of these behaviors are against the law and have criminal justice consequences, and all have negative health consequences. The end result is the same: children who engage in high-risk behaviors place themselves at long-term risk of having a variety of chronic illnesses, many of which can seriously impair quality of life, and can even end life prematurely.

Federal youth risk prevention and treatment programs should:

Acknowledge that risk behaviors are interconnected- Risk behaviors are highly interconnected. First, the same primary risk factors lead adolescents to engage in a variety of negative behaviors, and conversely the same protective factors provide young people with the resolve to avoid risk-taking. Second, taking part in one risky behavior increases the likelihood that an adolescent will engage in another. For example, if a young person abuses alcohol, he or she is more likely to engage in other forms of risky behavior, such as sexual relations or delinquency.

Strengthen protective factors (such as the moral and social support of the family, school, faith-based and community resources)-Because of the related nature of risk factors, it is important that Federal programs address protective factors that help inoculate young people against all risk behaviors. Research has shown that the more children are connected to family, school, and community, the less likely they will engage in risk behaviors. Parents are especially important, as parent-child relations and parental supervision have been found to help children make wise choices and avoid risk-taking behavior. Federal programs should seek to strengthen these supports for youth.

Strengthen skills and competencies that promote responsible decision making, and improve academic, social and emotional outcomes-In addition to the importance of the outside supports, which some call "external assets", building youth's "internal assets" or strengths also provides them with protection against risk taking. Internal assets are such things as an adolescent's desire to learn, his or her social, emotional, moral and cognitive competencies, and his or her value system. Adults must provide support and guidance to young people, but when it is time to make decisions, each adolescent must have the inner strength and character to make the responsible choices. Federal programs must include skill-building components.

Provide youth with consistent messages about the legal, emotional, and health consequences of engaging in high-risk behaviors-To set a clear example and provide leadership, Federal programs need to communicate a consistent message that highlights the consequences of risk behaviors and avoids encouraging young people to even consider engaging in them. In the past, the messages about some behaviors have been mixed.

Support youth and families with a range of integrated service options that address youth needs-Because every child is different, a range of integrated service options to address youth needs is not only prudent, but cost effective. For most children, existing family and community resources, along with prevention programs, are sufficient. For children who are more engaged in problem behaviors, treatment programs are needed, and they, too, need to vary based upon the needs of each child.

The President has adopted initiatives that reflect these principles, especially the emphasis on sexual abstinence before marriage. As a part of the pending 1996 welfare reform reauthorization, the Administration is recommending that the Abstinence Education program, a feature of the original 1996 legislation, be reauthorized at the same level of funding. In addition, the President's budget for the Department of Health and Human Services Community-Based abstinence education grants increased funding from $40 million to 2002 to $73 million in 2003, an 83 percent increase. This increase ensures that more communities across the country are able to deliver the consistent message that abstinence is the surest way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy and STDs. In addition, the President has proposed continuing the current funding of $12 million to the Adolescent Family Life abstinence program, which reaches more than 112,000 adolescents. [15]

Goal 2: Ready for Work, College, and Military Service

All American youth, regardless of whether or not they are disadvantaged, need to have a strong academic foundation upon which to build their future as they go on to college, work and military service. The Task Force believes that the elements of this foundation need to be provided throughout their academic careers, at all levels of schooling.

Education in the United States is primarily a state and local responsibility. Local and state governments, not the Federal government, establish the Nation's schools, develop curricula, and determine enrollment and graduation requirements. Through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Federal role is to support state and local efforts in embracing major reforms that help to set high expectations, raise academic standards for students, and ensure accountability for results. One example of that role is the Title I formula grant to the states, an $11.7 billion Federal grant program which helps disadvantaged youth by assisting their school districts in low income urban and rural areas.

When President Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Act by signing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, he sought greater efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the needs of all children, including disadvantaged youth. "Too many of our neediest children," he has repeated many times, "are being left behind." The bipartisan legislation increases accountability for states, school districts, and schools; promises greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; allows more flexibility for state and local educational agencies in the use of Federal education dollars; and places a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for the youngest children.

Because the President is committed to improving the performance of elementary and secondary schools, his Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth includes "ready for work, college, and military service" as a part of its vision for American young people. The Task Force believes, like the President, that all young people, especially those who are considered disadvantaged, need a core academic foundation that will lead to meaningful skills development and life-long employment.

All youth in America will receive a core academic foundation leading to meaningful skills development and life-long employment opportunities through a continuum of services that improve:

Core academic skills at the kindergarten to eighth grade level-All students should leave eighth grade equipped with the knowledge and skills to take them to the next level. Acquired proficiency in skills associated with the core academic subjects will assist them. The core academic subjects include English, Reading, Math, Science, Foreign languages, Civics and Government, Economics, Arts, History and Geography. No Child Left Behind has reinforced this commitment to knowledge in these areas by requiring local school districts in Title I programs to ensure their teachers hired to teach these subjects are highly qualified. Since President Bush took office, there has been a 39 percent increase in funding for the Improving Teacher Quality State Grant program along with increased funding in other areas to ensure students have the best opportunities to improve these skills.

Core academic skills at the high school level with appropriate non-school workplace preparation-The progression of knowledge attainment in these subjects should continue into the secondary level of education. We should build on the foundation that began at the elementary level and improve adolescents' skills. As a complement to these skills, youth need appropriate introductions to occupational skills training to keep up with the changing nature of the 21^st Century economy. The business community has embraced No Child Left Behind as an economic and workforce development imperative. Graduates with improved academic and technical skills training have more opportunities in the workforce and cost businesses less money on training in basic skills such as reading and math.

These dynamics are also shaping much of the President's push for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The President's reauthorization initiative includes reforms to make the workforce investment system more flexible, accountable, and focused on results to ensure that only programs that are most effective at helping Americans find work are funded.

The President's changes to the WIA also target disadvantaged youth, especially out-of-school youth, with a Targeted State Formula program and Challenge Grants. The Targeted State Formula program would be used at the local level. Challenge Grants to cities and rural areas would be awarded on a competitive basis, with funds going to programs proven effective at serving youth. Grants would also be awarded on a discretionary basis to high-quality programs that lead to high academic achievement.

Post-secondary skills attainment through an array of options that includes higher education or occupational skills training. Most youth will continue on to higher education but a quarter of our youth seek to enter the workforce in jobs that need special skills training. All youth need to be prepared for the technological advances and global changes that pose challenges to the competitiveness of the American workforce. These advances call for our institutions of higher education to better prepare our youth to succeed after graduation. [16] It also calls for better opportunities for those youth that are looking for alternative possibilities. Programs that train youth to be successful in the workforce need to connect with the corporate world to provide effective training and academic skills that make them marketable in the workplace.
Youths' connection to their schools-A key to the success of students' experiences in school is their sense of connection to their school. School connection is the belief by students that adults in the school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals. Research shows us that the critical requirements for feeling connected include students' experiencing: high academic expectations and rigor coupled with support for learning; positive adult-student relationships; and safety, both physical and emotional. [17]

Increasing the number of students connected to school is likely to impact critical accountability measures, such as academic performance; incidents of fighting, bullying, or vandalism; and absenteeism/school completion rates.

Strong scientific evidence demonstrates that increased student connection to school promotes educational motivation, classroom engagement, and improved school attendance. These three factors in turn increase academic achievement. Likewise, there is strong evidence that a student who feels connected to school is less likely to exhibit: disruptive behavior, school violence, substance and tobacco use, emotional distress, and premature initiation of sexual activity. These findings apply across racial, ethnic, and income groups [18].

Based on current research evidence, the most effective strategies for increasing the likelihood that students will be connected to school include:

Implementing high standards and expectations, and providing academic support to all students;
Applying fair and consistent disciplinary policies that are collectively agreed upon and fairly enforced;
Creating trusting relationships among students, teachers, staff, administrators, and families;
Hiring and supporting capable teachers skilled in content, teaching techniques, and classroom management to meet each learner's needs;
Fostering high parent/family expectations for school performance and school completion; and
Ensuring that every student feels close to at least one supportive adult at school.

Goal 3: Ready for Marriage, Family, and Parenting

Part of growing up is learning to be a grown-up, preparing to be a good spouse and a good parent. Generally this preparation is the responsibility of parents. Most often they do it well, but sometimes they will need support in providing this preparation. In the occasional instances where parents are unable to prepare youth for these roles, the Federal government must take steps to ensure that young people have caring adults in their lives to provide nurturing and role modeling. This task also should be borne by other levels of government, as well as community and faith-based organizations.

When Federal programs interact with youth, they should:

Seek to acknowledge, strengthen, and reinforce parental engagement in youths' development and improve parent-child relationships-Research has shown that healthy families with strong marriages and close parent-child relationships provide the strongest protection against adolescent risk-taking behaviors. According to "Reducing the Risk," [19] a publication from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health (Add Health), parents are central in shaping outcomes for young people. Controlling for the number of parents in a household, race, and economic status, the study found that children who report feeling connected to a parent are protected against many different kinds of risks: emotional distress and suicidal thoughts; cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use; violent behavior; and early sexual activity. This correlation holds true for both older and younger adolescents.
Specifically, the study found that the keys to the healthy growth and development of teens include 1) parents' physical presence in the home at key times during the day, 2) parental emotional connectedness to their adolescent children; and 3) parental expectations of high academic performance of their children. These factors especially protected teens from premature sexual activity, substance use, and pregnancy.

The President's vision of strengthening marriages and families in America seeks to improve child well-being by increasing the number of two-parent families. The Administration's proposal for TANF reauthorization encourages the formation and maintenance of healthy marriages, promotes responsible fatherhood, and strengthens the bonds between parents and their children. The fatherhood dimension of this proposal is significant. It encourages fathers to assume greater responsibility for their children, by supporting the activities of public and nonprofit community entities, including faith-based organizations, to support fathers as husbands, parents and breadwinners. Fatherhood grants will accomplish a variety of objectives including promoting responsible, caring, and effective parenting through counseling, mentoring, and parenting education, dissemination of educational materials and information on parenting skills, and the encouragement of positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers.
Seek responsible, caring adults to support young people in need-Unfortunately, not all young people have the support of loving parents. For this reason, Federal programs-to the degree that they address the problems of disadvantaged youth-need to help young people in need link up with responsible, caring adults. Research has shown that frequent and sustained contact with a trained mentor can significantly improve adolescent outcomes.
The President has made clear his commitment to mentoring through his Mentoring Initiative, announced in the 2003 State of the Union address. [20] This three year initiative has two components. The first seeks to link mentors with children less than 18 years of age with a parent in prison. The second provides mentors to middle school youth to improve their academic outcomes.
Prepare youths to pursue the ideal of a healthy, two-parent family through the development of character needed to become loving and responsible spouses and parents-Because healthy parent-child relations are important for every generation, young people who are navigating the transition to adulthood need to develop the personal qualities of heart and character so that they can become loving and responsible spouses and parents themselves. Federal programs should encourage character development and respectful adolescent relationships characterized by abstinence.

Goal 4: Ready for Civic Engagement and Service

From its earliest origins, America has flourished because of the willingness of its citizens to participate in democratic processes and institutions. It has been blessed again and again because citizens have stepped forward and served not only their communities but their Nation, without considering material reward. The values embedded in that spirit, and the benefits that flow from it have made us stronger, healthier, and more prosperous as a Nation. However, these qualities do not automatically appear and must be reinforced among ourselves and cultivated in our young people by teaching and by the examples set by every volunteer, every mentor, and everyone who cares enough about their community to give deeply of themselves. The Federal role in this involves the following goals:

Federal programs that address youth civic engagement and service should:

Foster youths' development into caring adults who have a clear sense of belonging and responsibility to their communities and the Nation through engagement in citizen service-Responsible citizenship in the United States begins with civic engagement at the local level and well-informed voting for public officials at all levels of government. This is the very heart of what it means to be an American. Yet, in the 2000 election, less than one-third of the population between the ages of 18 and 24 reported that they had voted. One key reason cited for not voting: people don't believe their vote makes a difference. In addition, only 9 percent of high school seniors could identify how a democratic society benefits from the active participation of citizens. [21] These sobering statistics demonstrate the imperative of a greater focus on readying youth, especially disadvantaged youth, for civic engagement.
President Bush's "We the People" initiative aims to reverse this troubling pattern. This initiative, run by the National Endowment for the Humanities, aims to cultivate an ethic of citizenship through enhanced civic education in the schools. The theory is that better history and civics education will lead naturally to higher levels of civic engagement, enabling young people to guard, nurture, and care for the Nation's guiding principles and values.

Of course, responsible American citizenship means more than just voting or speaking at a town meeting. It means giving back to society through volunteerism and social service. In his 2003 State of the Union address, the President encouraged all Americans "to apply the compassion of America to the deepest problems of America." Believing in the "wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism of the American people," the President has encouraged civic engagement and volunteerism. [22]

The good news is that, unlike voting, volunteering has become more common among college-bound high school students since 1984. More than 80 percent now say they volunteer; 53 percent on a regular basis. [23] Such service among young people should be encouraged at an early age. The sooner young people become involved in addressing the needs of others, the sooner they develop a sense of civic responsibility and civic belonging, reinforcing the sense that they belong to something larger than themselves.

To what degree disadvantaged youth fit the pattern among college-bound youngsters is not clear. Rates of volunteerism may be lower among disadvantaged young people. Nevertheless, disadvantaged youth can and do volunteer, often finding that community service allows them an opportunity to give back what others have given to them. They feel better about themselves-less like a victim and more like someone who has something of value to offer.

There are many examples of Administration initiatives to foster greater levels of volunteerism by the general public. These include the Faith-based and Community Initiative and USA Freedom Corps, which includes:

Volunteer Network, a clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities;
Council on Service and Civic Participation, to encourage and recognize outstanding and dedicated volunteer activity (awards are given to individuals, families, schools, businesses, and community and faith-based organizations);
Citizen Corps, supporting local efforts to helping communities prevent, prepare for, and respond to crime, natural disasters, and terrorism.
The President has also expanded Learn and Serve-which integrates community service with academic and extracurricular activities of young people-to include a wider range of public agencies and nonprofit organizations, including faith-based groups. Additionally, he has called for amending the Higher Education Act to require every college and university to increase the percentage of Federal Work-Study funds devoted to community service to 50 percent.

The Task Force has identified 105 Federal programs in 10 Federal agencies or departments that involve young people, including disadvantaged youth, in programs that include community service goals or activities. [24] These programs are wide ranging. The Corporation for National and Community Service, for example, sponsors a grant program under Learn and Serve America that encourages elementary and secondary schools and community organizations to create, develop, and offer service-learning opportunities for their students.

Another program, in the Department of Education, specifically targets the involvement of disadvantaged youth through the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers. This program enables rural and inner city public elementary and secondary schools (or consortia of schools) to plan, implement, or expand projects that benefit the educational, health, social service, cultural, and recreational needs of communities.
Support youths' connection to their communities by building on their internal assets and creating opportunities-Federally funded state and community based programs should not only treat youth as recipients of services, but reach out to them as partners in program planning, design, and leadership. Youth have important talents to share and skills to learn that often fall outside of academic curricula. Many youth know well what will work best for them. When they feel ownership for a program, they are more likely to give commitment and energy.
The experience of being listened to and respected as partners can build a young person's self-efficacy and help develop the characteristics of responsible adult citizenship. Some Federal programs already support this approach. For example, Federal program announcements for funding runaway and homeless youth programs include program performance standards that encourage youth involvement in service design, program planning and organizational management. [25]

Youth engagement and leadership need to be developed carefully-with training, preparation, and realistic expectations. Youth involvement must be genuine, not token. A detailed guide to successful youth involvement has been published for the runaway and homeless youth programs but is applicable to virtually every program serving young people. [26]

Chapter 2:
Better Management: Streamlining the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth

The Task Force developed a series of additional recommendations to address problematic management issues regarding youth programs. The recommendations in this section address some important issues that we discussed in our April, 2003 preliminary report, including problems with overlap and duplication, as well as mission fragmentation.

In our April preliminary report, we reported that:

Most of the 72 million American youth ages birth to 17 are doing fine, but a number suffer from a variety of factors that place them at a disadvantage.

About 15 percent of American children live below the poverty level.

For some of them, the government serves in loco parentis, in the place of family. More than half a million children are living in foster care. Some have families who are either barely functioning or nonexistent; about 3 in 10 live with just one parent. About 1.5 million children had parents in state and Federal prisons. In 2000, 879,000 children were abused or neglected.

Some face difficult health problems. About 12 percent live in families whose dire circumstances qualify them to receive nutrition or food assistance. Some 15 percent of school-age children are seriously overweight. Some suffer from chronic illnesses.

Some young people engage in risk-taking behaviors. More than 2.6 million teens use illicit substances each month. More than 3 million youth ages 12 to 17 are current smokers, and everyday, more than 6,000 try smoking for the first time. About 14 percent of high school students smoke frequently. One-third of high school students reported having sex in the previous three months, while 46 percent of high school students have had sexual intercourse, putting themselves at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Some 153,437 girls under the age of 18 gave birth in 2001, long before they were ready to be a responsible parent.

Some live in downtrodden or violent neighborhoods, leaving them vulnerable to crime. About 400,000 teens themselves commit violent crimes each year. Juveniles were involved in 16 percent of all violent crime index arrests and one-third of all property crime index arrests in 2000. One-quarter of all persons arrested for robbery that same year were under age 18.

Many are being left behind in school. Nearly 70 percent of inner city and rural 4^th graders cannot read at even a basic level. Some 13 percent of students are considered learning disabled. Almost 11 percent drop out of school entirely. More than 5.5 million children received special education services, 2.7 million for a specific learning disability and almost half a million for emotional disturbance. Many speak limited or no English. [27]

From the Federal Youth Programs Survey [28] we developed, we also found that:

There are 339 Federal programs serving disadvantaged youth in 12 departments. [29]
Federal involvement in issues surrounding disadvantaged youth has expanded significantly in the last four decades.
The Office of Management and Budget reports that Federal funding for disadvantaged youth in Fiscal Year 2003 totals $223.5 billion (see Appendix D).

Overall management and coordination of disadvantaged youth programs is poor:

Many of the 339 programs are offering multiple kinds of services to a wide variety of youth subgroups. These services and target populations frequently overlap.
The current Federal response to disadvantaged youth is a perfect example of "mission fragmentation." In situations like this, GAO recommends that programs with similar goals, target populations and services be coordinated, consolidated or streamlined as appropriate, to ensure that goals are consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing.
Youth program statutes are often written quite broadly, allowing agencies to have considerable discretion in the activities they conduct and populations they serve. Agencies exercised that discretion aggressively and widely. As time goes on, agencies often expand their programs to add in the "issue du jour." This type of "mission creep" leads to a haphazard response and a lack of the rationality that these serious and complex problems demand. These problems require that all youth-serving agencies have a clear and focused mission and a plan to ensure collaboration among Federal programs involved in addressing the same issue.

Accountability and Research Pose Problems

We have very little information to show for certain that the billions of dollars for youth programs are being spent wisely and effectively. Our review of youth-serving programs shows that a high percentage of Federal youth programs fared poorly in the three critical areas of evaluation and research:

OMB's PART process: Only one of 28 youth-serving programs was rated "effective" by OMB during the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. Three were "moderately effective," five were "adequate" and the remaining 68 percent were rated either "results not demonstrated" or "ineffective."
The GPRA process: Less than half of the identified programs indicated that they were included in their Department's Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) plans. This is potentially problematic because the purpose of GPRA is to provide objective information about the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs and spending, and thus increase the level of accountability to Congress and the American people. Thus, with no related goals, and more importantly, no performance measures, there can be no accountability under GPRA.
Program Evaluations: More than half of all of the 339 youth-related programs had not been evaluated within the last five years. Of the smaller number that was evaluated, 75 percent were evaluated independently, while the remainder were done mostly by the grantees themselves. The quality of the evaluations was low: only 27 programs have been evaluated using the more scientifically reliable random assignment method. Only 70 programs reported using some form of "outcome" evaluation, rather than a process evaluation.

To address these problems, we begin with a proposal for a Disadvantaged Youth Initiative, followed by recommendations on mission alignment, interagency coordination and improving the Federal grants system.

Create a Disadvantaged Youth Initiative

The Task Force identified the following issues which need to be addressed properly and as comprehensively as possible in order to increase the quality of Federal disadvantaged youth programs:

Reduce/eliminate overlap and duplication of services;
Focus policies and resources on Administration priorities;
Maximize the use of expertise that agencies already have;
Increase collaborative efforts;
Keep public health messages to youth consistent across agencies and programs;
Bring programs into the agency with whose mission they are most closely aligned;
Improve the quantity and quality of program evaluations;
Have a unified definition of "Best Practices;"
Develop a unified research agenda to identify best practices;
Encourage the development and use of similar performance measures for similar programs.

To help ensure that disadvantaged youth grow up to be healthy, productive adults, and to maximize the return on the Federal investment, the Task Force proposes the creation of a Disadvantaged Youth Policy Initiative, to be coordinated through the Executive Office of the President, to do the following:

Develop and coordinate policy, within existing policy structures, to address the needs of disadvantaged youth;

Maximize interagency collaborations to utilize the significant expertise within specific Federal agencies;

Coordinate Federal research so the government can fund programs that produce results that help disadvantaged youth;

Find and elevate models of "what works" and help replicate them nationwide.

MISSION ALIGNMENT

Through the process of identifying and reviewing the 339 Federal youth programs, we encountered several programs which were located in departments whose mission did not provide a clear and compelling reason for locating them within that agency. Clearly, they belong in an agency whose mission more closely matches theirs, and our recommendations below reflect that sentiment.

Move YouthBuild to the Department of Labor and better align Youth ChalleNGe with the Department of Labor

The Task Force recommends that the Department of Labor (DOL) assume administrative responsibility for the YouthBuild program, currently administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and work with the Department of Defense on better aligning the Youth ChalleNGe program with other youth programs funded by DOL. Each program is, at its core, an employment and training program for disadvantaged youth, and will benefit from administrative oversight in DOL within the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), since the strategic goals and mission of that department and agency align directly with the goals and mission of each program.

The Department of Labor has more than thirty years of experience working with employment and training programs. Importantly, DOL currently administers the Nation's One-Stop Career Center system, established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). This system stands as a solid service delivery infrastructure to provide employment and training services to youth and adults. The One-Stop system has and continues to develop strong connections to education and training institutions and employers and is charged with being "in tune" with employer needs-understanding the skills employers seek, and knowing the high-demand occupations in local areas.

DOL also currently administers the WIA formula grant youth programs and the Job Corps program; employment and training programs specifically targeting young people. Under WIA youth programs, youth receive assessments and services that provide them with the education, skills training and supportive services needed to successfully undertake postsecondary education or unsubsidized employment. These programs are also directly connected to the job market and employers. In addition, the Job Corps program has helped more than 1.5 million severely disadvantaged young people, ages 16-24, who have either dropped out of school or are in need of additional education and training. The program is a full-time, year-round residential program where youth split their time between the classroom, earning their GED or diploma, and learning a technical skill or trade. Much of the program's success lies in its strict discipline and behavioral standards.

YouthBuild is currently administered by HUD, and provides unemployed young people, ages 16-24, with work experience while they build affordable housing for homeless and low-income families in their own neighborhood. Young participants split their time between the construction site and the classroom, where they earn their GED or high school diploma, learn to be community leaders, and prepare for college. The program provides economically challenged young adults with the skills necessary to achieve economic self-sufficiency, leadership and commitment to community. Under WIA, YouthBuild is a mandatory partner in the One-Stop system. After over five years of operation under WIA, however, it is evident that a more direct linkage is needed between the YouthBuild program and the activities of the One-Stop Career Center system.

The following story illustrates the value of this approach. Recently, a Rockford, Illinois, Job Corps program helped a local YouthBuild program that stood to lose 40 volunteers and as much as 20 percent of its funding due to cuts in the national AmeriCorps program. As reported in the August 5, 2003, Rockford Register Star, the local Job Corps volunteered to "pick up the slack" and share resources with the struggling YouthBuild project. At the same time, the programs would work "hand-in-hand," with Job Corps benefiting when its graduating students could gain additional hands-on job skills volunteering for community projects with YouthBuild. The YouthBuild director praised Job Corps for its willingness to share "turf."

This collaboration made news because it is all too rare. Situating similar programs in a single department permits department leadership to override issues of turf forcing collaborations that sustain programs in crisis when program operators do not display the spirit embodied in the Rockford community. [30]

Youth ChalleNGe is currently administered by DOD/Army National Guard and targets 16-18-year-old high school dropouts. The goals of this program are to enhance the life skills, educational levels and employment potential of at-risk youth through structured, quasi-military training. The first five months are a residential phase, which is followed by a year-long mentoring relationship with a trained mentor from the youth's community. Youth ChalleNGe is not a mandatory partner in the One-Stop system. In many cases it operates completely separately from the One-Stop system. The approach of the Youth ChalleNGe program is similar to the Job Corps program currently administered by DOL. The Youth ChalleNGe program and participants can benefit from stronger ties with the One-Stop system and Job Corps.

DOL should assume administrative responsibility for the YouthBuild program, currently administered by HUD, and administrative oversight of the Youth ChalleNGe program, currently administered by DOD. The programs would retain their core mission and service delivery model while being merged administratively with other ETA-funded youth programs. In addition, a strong partnership between DOL and HUD would be maintained, and DOL and DOD will finalize details of how Youth ChalleNGe can be better aligned with DOL programs while maintaining the strong link with the National Guard through contracting or other means. This recommendation will result in improved services to young people and enhanced program outcomes by:

Administering each program in the agency where the strategic goals of the department and agency align directly with the core goals of each program as discussed below;

Effectively using the One-Stop system's specialized resources, expertise and market knowledge, particularly in connecting individuals to supportive services necessary to complete the program, and in today's tight labor market, placing individuals in education, training or jobs with a market demand; and

Enhancing the One-Stop system through drawing on these two unique program models and integrating best practices from these models throughout the One-Stop system.

While YouthBuild and Youth ChalleNGe have unique program components, the programs align with and can be enhanced by the DOL strategic goals of:

A Prepared Workforce: DOL's outcome goals of increased employment, earnings and retention, as well as assistance to youth in the transition to work, are clearly in line with the programmatic goals of these programs; and

A Competitive Workforce: The outcome goal of anticipating and addressing workforce gaps-including demand for new workers, replacement workers, and highly skilled workers. [31]

The program goals also align with and can be enhanced by ETA's goals of:

Maximizing Partnerships with Other Programs: Using Federal dollars efficiently by maximizing collaboration with One-Stop partner programs and reducing duplication of effort across funding streams; and

Targeting Resources on Out-of-School Youth. [32]

Integrating these funding streams into the one Federal agency that is responsible for delivering youth employment services will benefit the programs and their participants. Policies can be streamlined, and services can be expanded by leveraging program funds. More individuals can be served in a more effective and comprehensive manner, boosting program performance, and supporting a competitive and prepared workforce.

Move the Gang Resistance, Education and Training Program to OJJDP

The Task Force recommends that the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, or "G.R.E.A.T.," currently housed in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF), be transferred within the Department of Justice (USDOJ) to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). This transfer would include technical assistance and other support resources, as well as the grants budget, and the basic content of the strategic plan. It will link G.R.E.A.T. into the many OJJDP programs to prevent gangs and violence and promote constructive behavior among young people.

G.R.E.A.T. is a $16 million life skills competence program designed to provide students with the skills they need to avoid gang pressure. The program began in 1991 with the goal of helping prevent youth crime, violence and gang association while developing a positive relationship among law enforcement, families, and young people to create safer communities. It is authorized through the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2002. However, the agency that houses this program, BATF, is fundamentally a regulatory and law enforcement organization "dedicated to reducing violent crime and protecting the public," and charged with enforcing the Federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives and arson.

On the other hand, OJJDP's mission is fully in tune with that of the G.R.E.A.T. program. It is dedicated to delinquency prevention and youth development promotion, with programs such as Drug-Free Communities Support, Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), National Youth Network, SafeFutures, Safe Kids/Safe Streets, Strengthening America's Families, Gang-Free Schools and Communities, Safe Start, and Boys and Girls Clubs.

OJJDP also maintains a strong focus on evaluation of programs and research into effective practices, for example, by funding the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. The Center provides technical assistance to a number of violence prevention programs across the Nation and publishes the widely recognized Blueprints for Violence Prevention, a set of model prevention and intervention programs that meet a strict scientific standard of program effectiveness. [33] OJJDP addresses many areas relevant to G.R.E.A.T. and provides resources for substance abuse prevention, public education/information, community re-entry support for juvenile offenders, mentoring, and many other services.

OJJDP is led by an Administrator, under the leadership of the Assistant Attorney General, (OJP), who reports to the Associate Attorney General, under the Attorney General and the Deputy. The other OJP agencies share many of the prevention and community strengthening objectives of OJJDP, such as victim assistance, prevention of violence against women, in-school conflict resolution, community development, research, etc. In turn, OJP is alongside the Office of Community Oriented Policing (Cops in Schools), and the Community Relations Service (reduction of racial tension), which also report to the Associate Attorney General.

With G.R.E.A.T. relocated, BATF can focus on its counter-terrorism and regulatory functions, many of which are particularly crucial post-9/11. From its new home in OJJDP, G.R.E.A.T. can connect with the larger world of youth development and risk prevention activities in which OJJDP has traditionally engaged. This program clearly shows signs of success. As such, it deserves careful attention and possibly expansion and replication of its methods in other risk prevention, character education, and youth development areas. Synergy with other OJJDP programs could assure more students are reached and underserved communities included.

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Interagency coordination should be accomplished around topic areas or special target populations. Where issue areas warrant the attention of multiple agencies, we recommend that an interagency group be created to ensure communication, coordination and collaboration. The Federal government should also help facilitate interagency collaboration at the state and local levels as well, particularly since these levels of government receive the bulk of the Federal funds for youth-serving programs. The following are two examples of recommendations which support this approach. This report includes additional recommendations regarding interagency coordination in Chapter 5.

Improve Coordination of Mentoring Programs

The Task Force recommends the creation of a Federal Interagency Workgroup on Mentoring to engage in a variety of activities identified below that would aid the coordination and collaboration of all mentoring programs and activities supported by Federal agencies.

Research has shown that an ongoing relationship with a caring adult is a primary component of healthy adolescent development. Mentoring is a powerful tool that, when done properly, connects vulnerable youth with a responsible advocate who can help navigate safe pathways to adulthood. Research also shows that when at-risk youth are linked with a well-matched, screened, and trained mentor, they are likely to improve their academic achievement while decreasing their involvement with the juvenile justice system. [34]

The President, therefore, has a comprehensive agenda of using mentoring as an important tool to ensure that no child is left behind. He has proposed, as part of his USA Freedom Corps, the placement of mentors in the lives of more than one million disadvantaged children who are transitioning from childhood to adolescence. His initiative, working in tandem with national youth service organizations as well as with local community and faith-based organizations, has two components:

A proposed $100 million per year program, administered by the Department of Education, to provide one million new mentors to disadvantaged middle school students. [35] This component builds on the Mentoring for Success Act passed as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Act in 2001, which provided $17.5 million to fund local mentoring programs in 2002 and 2003. It also reinforces No Child Left Behind by supporting strategies proven to enhance the academic performance of disadvantaged children. The strengths of this component are many: it is directed at school-based mentoring; it focuses on youth who are most at risk of educational failure; and it brings adults into the schools.

A $50 million per year program, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide 10,000 mentors for children whose parents are in prison. This furthers the goals of the Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which called for the expansion of services to strengthen families using community and faith-based groups. It is also intended to strengthen healthy and positive bonds between children and incarcerated parents and to cultivate mentors from within the child's own extended family and community. A first round of grants is already underway based on an initial appropriation of nearly $10 million for Fiscal Year 2003 [36].

The President's initiatives build upon existing mentoring activities already currently supported by 13 different Federal agencies. These agencies administer more than 120 different programs that provide support for a variety of mentoring activities. In fact, mentoring is the 8^th most frequent activity identified among the 41 types of activity identified in the 339 Federal programs that serve youth. However, currently there is little coordination or collaboration among these various Federal programs, nor does any single agency have the responsibility of cultivating and advancing the expertise and knowledge of "best practices" with regards to mentoring. As a result:

Agencies are often unaware of the mentoring activities being engaged in by other agencies or within their own agency. This often results in duplication of efforts in some areas while other areas receive little or no services.

Research and evaluation of the same or similar programs is not coordinated, thereby resulting in costly duplication of effort and inconsistent findings.

The new Interagency Work Group on Mentoring would include representatives from the departments of Justice, HHS, Education, Labor and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Functioning under the leadership of the USA Freedom Corps and the Disadvantaged Youth Initiative, the work group would:

Identify all of the mentoring programs and activities currently being engaged in and being planned for;

Map grantees receiving mentoring funds;

Identify areas where additional mentoring resources are needed;

Assess the current knowledge about what works in mentoring;

Propose a common definition of effectiveness;

Propose common data collection elements;

Identify gaps in current research;

Design an Interagency Mentoring Research Strategy;

Develop a process for identifying proven and promising practices;

Develop mechanisms for making the public and grantees in particular aware of best practices, research and evaluation findings.

Support State and Local Community Planning Process

States and local communities have bureaucratic infrastructures that parallel those of Federal agencies. Each of these governmental entities has its own mission and budget that guide the allocation of funds to communities. The fragmentation of Federal youth policy is compounded by fragmented state spending which leaves local communities piecing together program dollars from a wide variety of funding streams, each with its own regulatory and reporting requirements.

Over the years, states and local communities have tackled this issue by developing coordinating bodies (task forces, collaboratives, councils, etc.). Often, the creation of these groups was required in order to comply with the Federal statute. The majority of these groups tend to be focused on a specific outcome (e.g., a Governor's Council on Literacy), a specific population (e.g., an Attorney General's task force on children of incarcerated parents), or a specific type of service (such as substance abuse prevention services in the case of SAMHSA's state incentive grants). While efforts such as these are often quite successful, states and localities must then struggle to align these coordinating bodies with each other. States and localities may be able to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their service delivery by incorporating a range of outcomes, populations and services into an overarching coordinated plan. Efforts to coordinate along specific lines such as those above could be handled as subsets of the overarching effort. This would ensure that these narrower coordinating efforts are aligned with each other and feed into an overarching state or local plan. Over the last five years, the HHS Administration for Children and Families has funded work in 13 states to ensure planning, innovation, and better collaboration at the state level and between the state and community levels, around issues and programs for youth development. Evaluation data and case study analysis are in the final stages for these projects and could provide useful lessons and models for state and local collaboration to improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth. [37]

Using existing resources, the multiple Federal agencies that support youth programs would jointly fund demonstration grants to support state and local efforts to develop and implement a strategic prevention framework to guide future investments in disadvantaged youth. Participating states would receive a grant to support a state-level coordinator and a strategic mapping and plan development process. Federal staff would also provide technical assistance and guidance related to the availability of funding resources (grants.gov) and evidence-based practices (the What Works Clearinghouses).

States would develop plans using a theoretical model designed to include: (1) the full age range from 0-17; (2) the full range of goals: physical health and safety, academic achievement and workforce preparation, healthy family/social relationships, and civic engagement and service; and (3) science-based models of public health and safety (e.g., universal, indicated and targeted interventions or an ecological framework that proposes individual, family school, community level interventions).

Each state would assign a coordinator who would be responsible for regularly convening representatives from all relevant departments and agencies, as well as other key stakeholders, and helping these representatives to craft and implement a plan to be jointly adopted by the Secretaries or equivalent. The coordinator would also ensure that drafts of the plan are regularly reviewed by service providers, local leaders (including members of the faith community), parents and residents. When possible, this work would be undertaken by an existing collaborative body (council, task force, etc.) Existing collaborative bodies would be encouraged to pursue ways to expand their mandate and membership to allow them to tackle the full strategic framework articulated above.

A report on the state mapping process would consist of the following elements:

Youth Indicators Report-how well youth are achieving in each area outlined in the framework above;
Youth Services, Supports and Opportunities Report-an assessment of the quantity and quality of the services, supports and opportunities available to young people in each area of the framework;
Youth Budget-mapping existing Federal, state and local dollars and programs to determine what resources are being allocated to each area of the framework;

The state strategic plan would then include recommendations on how to reduce fragmentation and improve the effectiveness of efforts for disadvantaged youth.

Recommendations would include:

Coordination strategies (to improve this and other collaborative efforts);

Communications strategies (to promote a positive vision of and for disadvantaged youth, and to link together into coherent messages the array of things young people need to know);

Funding strategies (to maximize Federal, state and local investments);

Capacity building strategies (to support practitioners and volunteers, organizations, and communities through technical assistance and other means aligned across departments and agencies);

Processes for selection and implementation of Evidence-Based Prevention programs;

Strategies for maintaining accountability for outcomes.

In addition, each state would select one or two target pilot communities to conduct parallel planning processes, and provide them with the technical assistance, incentives, and leadership necessary to spark and sustain their efforts. The state coordinator would be responsible for convening these communities that are engaged in parallel planning processes, and for encouraging the alignment of frameworks and efforts between the state and local levels.

Once the state and local plans are completed, the Federal government could convene Federal officials from across departments and agencies to review the plans, meet with the state and local representatives and entertain suggestions for ways the Federal government could streamline its work and increase flexibility as needed for states to fully implement their plans.

Subsequent Federal community prevention grant announcements could give priority to states that have established such coalitions and which have developed viable strategic planning frameworks and can show how additional funding will be used to support evidence-based practices that further these plans. Federal grant review processes might also reward applicants that demonstrate coordination and collaboration with other Federal grant programs and existing resources in their communities.

IMPROVE THE FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM

The current Federal grants process is in need of specific improvements to increase its value to these specific stakeholders: potential grantees, Federal program officers, and policymakers within the executive and legislative branches. This issue is critically important to those who care about disadvantaged youth, for the more they can maximize their effectiveness in using the resources of the Federal government, the more likely it is that there are going to be better outcomes for the youth who need help the most.

The Task Force has developed a series of recommendations to improve this current system. Ideally, a searchable database of all past, present and future grant activity would be created, which could then become the comprehensive database on discretionary grant spending in the United States. This will require a series of steps, which should include the following:

Modernize the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Task Force recommends that the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance format be revised and updated to fit the way grants are currently administered. This would enable potential grantees as well as policymakers to better track grant opportunities and related activities within youth-serving agencies.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs (CFDA) is a government-wide compendium of all 1,499 Federal domestic assistance programs. [38] This number includes the youth grants described in our April, 2003 preliminary report. The CFDA is maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA), while OMB serves as an intermediary agency between the Federal agencies and GSA. [39] The Catalog is published in hard copy and available in an online searchable database maintained by GSA.

The Catalog is considered the basic reference source of Federal programs. It is intended to improve coordination and communication between the Federal government and state and local governments. [40] Even with the e-grants initiative website (located at www.Grants.gov), the Catalog continues to be utilized. Thus, it plays a critically important role in helping all potential grantees, including state and local governments, as well as nonprofits, universities, hospitals, faith-based and community groups, to identify Federal programs which meet specific objectives.

Unfortunately, the CFDA system d