CHAPTER VIII AN ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS AMONG Fundamental to the development of a national strat- The brief analysis presented here does not pretend to define all of the issues of youth development and delinquency prevention. For example, once a determination is made of the "best" indicator of the problems of youth development, a careful resource survey should relate to per capita rates of Federal, State and local investment. This analysis, however, merely refers to the absolute levels of Federal funding, without regard to rates of expenditure. As an illustration of the study and policy decisions that should take place in the course of developing a national strategy, Table 29 presents three alternative ways of looking at delinquency and youth problems. Column 1 is concerned only with the youth population in the States and is, in effect, the basic standard for the entire table. Column 2 lists the number of delinquents in corrections institutions. Although some of the variations between population and institutionalized delinquents can be ascribed to differences in State reporting standards, it is also probable that there are real differences in juvenile crime rates, apprehensions, convictions and sentencing procedures. These differences have relevance for a program of delinquency preven tion. A third index useful in defining youth development might be the school drop-out population (Column 3). This indicator has the advantage of highlighting areas in which a sensitive national strategy would provide compensatory resources. - Because this analysis format is based upon actual numbers (rather than rates), the rankings tend to reflect the overall size of the State especially in the case of the "giants" and the "pygmies". In spite of the evident differences between State rankings based on youth population, institutionalized delinquents, or high school drop-outs, the variance is even greater between the allocation of Federal funds by program. In other words, the rankings in the first three columns are more in agreement than any of the rankings based on Federal fund disbursements (except for ESEA Title One Programs). YDDPA An examination of the data for YDDPA programs for fiscal years 1969 and 1970 reveals a trend toward smaller States in the disbursement pattern. This trend is partially explained by the fact that planning grants to the States tended to be uniform in size---in part due to the limitation on the amount of funds spent per State. Hence, this would have a greater impact on the total amount of funds granted to a small State. Secondly, the size of the total YDDPA program in its first two years had limited the size of individual grants. Smaller grants would be relatively more effective in smaller States, and therefore, one would expect that a relatively larger proportion of smaller States, would apply for, and receive, grants. This hypothesis is borne out by the distribution of prevention and rehabilitation grants (See Tables 16 and 18, Chapter V). Although it may be possible to explain the pattern of YDDPA expenditures post facto, it should be pointed out that neither of the explanations corresponds with explicit policy or strategy statements. Nor is there any evidence that such a distribution of resources is more or less effective than any other pattern. Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Other Federal Grants The principal reasons for the erratic pattern of other D/HEW grants and programs are the uneven distribution of academic and research resources to support discretionary grant activity, and the distortions caused by a limited number of very large demonstration projects (e.g., Title VIII Drop-out Prevention Projects). In the kind of detailed and comprehensive resource survey necessary to support the development of a reasonable national strategy, the extremely uneven distribution of special grant and project monies would be partially offset by the proportions of large bloc grants based on population (i.e., Title III, ESEA) spent on activities related to youth development and delinquency prevention. Table 29 presents two different pictures of the delinquency related monies distributed to States by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act through the LEAA. It is in the area of delinquency prevention in which there is most congruence between the distribution of funds under LEAA State programs and the YDDPA State programs. LEAA delinquency prevention program funds (column 8) are nearly as maldistributed on the basis of youth population as are total YDDPA funds (column 4). Further, there is a tendency for the LEAA and YDDPA to "upgrade" and "downgrade' the same States. Both programs are providing "more" or "less" funds to the same States, rather than complementing each other in the distribution of funds. In other words, there is no evidence of utilizing the resources of LEAA and YDDPA to complement one another on a national basis. This condition may be due to the presence of sophisticated utilizers of both agencies' programs at the local level applying for and receiving funds from both agencies. The result is a maldistribution of national resources. Also, YDDPA has a uniform reservation per State unrelated to the youth population. Total LEAA expenditures for delinquency (column 7), including corrections, police programs, and the prevention category discussed above, represent a significantly more regular distribution on the basis of population. This is to be expected, since total LEAA State bloc grants are based on population. However, more analysis needs to be done to determine the target population, per capita average, and marginal effects of LEAA investment. In the case of YDDPA projects (column 4) an inspection reveals that the distinction between rehabilitation and prevention is often not clear. It seems more likely that there are real differences between LEAA grants to police, and grants for corrections and prevention projects. Job Corps expenditures per State are presented as only partially indicative of the kind of resource distribution which might be found among youth-directed job training programs. An interesting feature of this catagory is that there seems to be greater correspondence between Job Corps expenditures and high school drop-outs than between expenditures and youth population. This generalization is more relevant if one adds the condition that there also appears to be a weighting in favor of the southern States. Again, in the detailed analysis for national strategy, many similar programs such as Neighborhood Youth Corps, New Careers, JOBS, and so on, must be considered in terms of their impact on the youth population (or the subgroup deemed most appropriate). In conclusion: A. The pervasive inconsistencies in fund distribution evident among and between all major programs dealing with the problems of youth development and delinquency prevention highlight the lack of coherent national planning or priorities. B. The distribution of YDDPA funds and their relationship with the distribution of other relevant program funds suggest that the Federal government has not maximized its capabilities. Although bits and pieces of the Federal response to the problems of youth and delinquency may be achieving their discrete objectives, the whole-in terms of the overall effectiveness of Federal efforts--may be less than the sum of the parts. *It is not the purpose of the annual report to evaluate the specific programs of the Department and other agencies. However, material is included in this chapter about other programs for comparison purposes and as part of the analysis of YDDPA activities, as well as to present an overview of total Federal effort in youth development and juvenile delinquency. |