the system. For example, there is a need for information about the arrest rates for various juvenile offenses and data about the numbers of youth who are diverted or who receive informal dispositions. Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 1.2.

The inventory of service resources should identify all the community groups and agencies impacting on youth. It should assist in the assignment of agency responsibility for various aspects of juvenile service provision and indicate areas of service duplication as well as areas for possible service coordination. See Standard 1.22; see generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 1.5.

The listing of agencies should be sorted as to location, types of service provided, service delivery area, and intake criteria. For each program, there should be a brief description of the kind of services provided and the nature of client groups. There should also be information about referral resources and descriptions, if any. Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 1.5.

The problem identification and analysis should utilize the data collection process to ascertain the number and problems of troubled youth as identified by the various components of the juvenile service system. Given the emphasis on juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, the statistical and resource information should provide the basis for the development of an accurate description of the delinquency problem at the local level. It should also provide a detailed description of the community's effectiveness in dealing with delinquency and other related juvenile problems, as well as identifying areas in need of change. These descriptions and analyses can provide the basis for setting goals and developing program strategy. See Standard 1.23; see generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standards 1.3 and 26.1.

The statement of needs called for in paragraph (d) and described in more detail in Standard 1.24 should include an analysis of the interaction of the various components of the juvenile service system to address the problems identified. This will facilitate focusing on specific aspects of the juvenile service system important to the alleviation of particular problems. It should indicate the types of modifications and additions to the existing system necessary to deal more effectively with such problems. This identification of appropriate corrective measures should assist in resource allocation and the development of appropriate goals and program strategies. See Standard 1.25.

that will be undertaken as a result of the gap which exists between the current situation and the desired situation. Since the goal statement should represent the desired condition of the juvenile service system at some point in the future, it should provide the focus for all subsequent planning activities and reflect the desires of the community. The statement should also be stated in a clear, measurable, and realistic manner to afford maximum guidance to the community. See Standard 1.25; see generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 26.2.

The fifth component of the plan concerns the development of appropriate program strategies to facilitite goal attainment. Through the utilization of the local planning staff's expertise and the technical assistance of the state agency, the local planning unit should indicate the types and costs of necessary programs, policies, and system modifications necessary to meet annual planning goals. While this part of the planning process does not concern the specific design of the program to be implemented, it should be appraised in relation to the findings of the foregoing aspects of the planning process. There should be a clear relationship between the purpose of the recommended program strategies and the problem analysis and the annual goals of the plan. This will assist program design and implementation and the evaluation of the specific program as well as the local plan.

In the local juvenile service plan, information should be provided regarding why particular strategies were chosen, and the results of similar strategies adopted in other communities or the rationale for selecting an experimental program model. See Standard 1.26; see generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 1.6.

While this standard recommends that the local planning authority should develop an annual plan, it does not prescribe a particular planning model. But in conjunction with the standards on planning in the 1.2 series, it identifies some of the basic concepts or components that should be incorporated into any model regardless of the structure and the sequence of the recommended planning steps. By incorporating these steps, the local juvenile service plan should provide the community with a clear understanding of its delinquency problem and outline a specific strategy or strategies to deal with the problem utilizing new and existing juvenile service system resources. It should clarify the roles of agencies, groups, and individuals with respect to how their contributions will benefit community endeavors.

1.111 Organization of the Local Juvenile Justice System 1.113 Coordination, Development, and Implementation of Local Juvenile Service Programs and Guidelines 1.114 Evaluation and Modification of the Local Juvenile Service System Program Efforts

1.121 Organization of the State Juvenile Service System 1.122 Development of a State Juvenile Service Plan 1.124 Provision of Financial and Technical Resources Evaluation of Local and State Efforts

1.125

1.131

Organization and Coordination of the Federal Juvenile Service System

1.131

1.113 Coordination,
Development, and
Implementation of Local
Juvenile Service

Programs and Guidelines

Pursuant to the local juvenile service plan, the planning authority should facilitate the design, development, and coordination of appropriate programs, policies, and service system modifications. In conjunction with the state agency described in Standard 1.121, it should designate which local juvenile service agencies, organizations, and programs should be responsible for the provision of specific services and the methods of providing those services either through the development of new programs or the expansion, redirection, and/or coordination of existing programs.

Sources:

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 1.6, 2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 26.4-5, and 27.1-4 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Report of the White House Conference on Youth, 722(a)-722(b) (1971); Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Planning for Juvenile Justice, Standards 1.2 and 2.4 (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice].

Commentary

This standard recommends that the local planning authority initiate the necessary actions to implement the goals and strategies resulting from the process outlined in Standard 1.112. The local authority, in its efforts to achieve the goals, should recognize the limitations of new financial and programmatic resources available from the state and federal governments, and identify the means for maintaining such resources through local funding mechanisms. Given these limitations, the local planning authority, in conjunction with the state agency described in Standard 1.121, should attempt, whenever feasible, to accomplish its objectives through the coordination and redirection of existing public and private juvenile justice and delinquency prevention services. Thus, the planning process provides the local community with the capability of assessing its juvenile service needs and the

existing system's effectiveness in meeting those needs, of establishing goals and strategies to resolve the needs, and of making the juvenile service system adaptable and responsive to the local community concerns. Coordination suggests that policies of individual juvenile service agencies should be supportive and not contradictory, and that the participant services in the service delivery system should contribute to a common community purpose. Unfortunately, coordination is a deceptively simple concept and not easily achieved, because of the need to resolve conflicts in values and objectives, and to overcome the differences in perspectives among various agencies and professions. IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Commentary to Standard 1.2(a).

...

successful coordination requires a clear consensus about the goals of the organizations which are seeking to coordinate services; it demands a system of information. interchange and clear definitions of the professional services offered by each agency; and it requires an agreed theory of how the several services and levels of government are and ought to be related to each other for the coordinated performance of services. IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at 33-34.

None of the conditions suggested above can be realized without considerable investment of time, interagency cooperation, authority, and money. Due to these considerations, a local community must review coordination as an on-going process, achievable only at incremental levels over a period of time. The planning authority in conjunction with the state agency should carefully discern what levels of coordination are absolutely necessary to accomplish its goals, what are the most expedient yet realistic options available to implement the coordination activities, and what, if any, control is necessary to induce the affected agencies to comply with the planned process of coordination regarding budget, personnel, and/or rules and regulations. Three criteria have been suggested to determine whether coordination of services on a planned basis should be attempted:

i. Can it be shown that greater economies of scale will more than compensate for the costs of coordination efforts; or

ii. Can it be demonstrated that lack of coordination will

1.114 Evaluation and Modification of the LocalLevel Juvenile Service System Program Efforts

The local planning and coordination authority in accordance with the local juvenile service plan and established standards and guidelines should evaluate, monitor, and, when necessary, recommend modification of:

a. New and expanded juvenile service programs, policies, and system changes resulting from the planning process; b. The existing local juvenile service system; and c. The local planning process.

The evaluation and monitoring function should be conducted on a regular and ongoing basis by the local planning authority and the state agency described in Standard 1.121.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 1.7, 25.1, and 27.1-27.4 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Report of the White House Conference on Youth, 722(a)-722(b) (1971); Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Planning for Juvenile Justice, Standard 2.4 (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice].

Commentary

This standard recommends that the local planning authority assume an evaluation function to determine the quality of juvenile services being provided and to identify gaps in the kinds of services available. Since the local planning authority is the element of the planning process which is closest to those receiving services, it is the element best able to directly involve the juvenile services constituency in the planning process, to assess programs from the point of view of those directly affected, and to initiate and review proposals for change based on evaluation. In this regard the standard recommends that the local evaluation effort, on a regular and ongoing basis, should focus on three interrelated areas: new and expanded juvenile service projects, programs, policies, and system changes resulting from the planning process; the existing local juvenile service system; and the local planning process. See generally Report of the Task Force, supra.

Evaluation should be viewed as part of the ongoing planning process providing feedback in the aforementioned areas to enable the local planning authority to make adjustments to meet the needs of the existing system. In order to provide the local authority with the information necessary to ascertain whether a project's activities meet its announced goals, and what, if any, actions should be taken, adequate evaluation criteria should be incorporated at the initial stages of project development and utilized throughout the implementation of the project. This evaluation process, whether focusing on a new project, the existing system, or the local plan, is essentially the same in all cases. See generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 1.7.

While the evaluation efforts of the local community primarily focus on the project level where resources are utilized to produce an endproduct or service, they also relate to the program level of which projects are components, and to the system level of which programs and the implementing agencies are the components. Each of the levels-project, program, and system-are progressively interrelated and contribute to the objectives of the successive level.

Since the planning activities of the state and federal governments deal primarily with programs and systems, they are dependent upon the evaluations at the project level to afford direction in the allocation of resources. See generally J.S. Wholey et. al., Federal Evaluation Policy, 24 (1971). Thus, without an evaluation function the other aspects of the planning process are hindered by lack of knowledge about the present state of either a specific project, a particular program, or the entire juvenile service system. See generally Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Criminal Justice Planning Institute, Training Manual, 8-1, (draft, 1976) [hereinafter cited as CJPI, Training Manual].

While evaluation has many connotations, for the purposes of this and related standards it is defined in relation to two functions: performance monitoring and intensive evaluation. Performance monitoring primarily concerns the measurement of project activities. Intensive evaluation, on the other hand, encompasses the analysis of project results to determine if they were caused by project activities. Thus, projects have objectives which relate to implementation activities (e.g., to serve clients, to harden targets) that are assessed by performance monitoring; and objectives which relate to