state dollars (non-Federal) invested in delinquency prevention for the years of 1981, 1982 and 1983. Some states reported unusually high expenditures, i.e., Louisiana, West Virginia, District of Columbia, while others, Alabama, Georgia, Colorado and New Jersey, reported zero expenditures. There is wide divergence among states as to what constitutes delinquency prevention. Many states view all services for youth as delinquency prevention, while others define prevention as a societal action to preclude illegal behavior. New York indicated $70,000,000 per year for delinquency prevention, but according to the New York Juvenile Justice Planner only a part of the funds listed under the broad category of juvenile prevention are actually used for prevention. The larger part of the funds are for general services for youth.

At this juncture it is difficult to assess just what effects the changes in Federal programs and Federal funding have made at the State and local levels. Both the number and size of programs have been decreased in some areas. Many State and local governments are in the midst of reassessing their total juvenile services and of reevaluating priorities. Although commitment to prevention has been strong in some states such as Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, Florida, and Wisconsin, in others efforts have been much more tentative. Whether cutbacks in funding and efforts to increase coordination alter further development of prevention plans and prevention programming remains to be seen.

As noted in the Sixth Analysis and Evaluation and in other chapters of this paper, many agencies at all levels of government deal with prevention activities although these may not be identified as such. The sources of funding are numerous and varied. The comprehensive study by the Academy for Contemporary Problems, Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training: Grants in Aid of Local Delinquency Prevention and Control Services (MIJJIT), identified 41 states using Federal JJDPA grants and 30 states using Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act funds for deliquency prevention as well as control activities. Most also used Title XX, Social Security Act funds, child welfare, mental health and medicaid funds. The MIJJIT study did not look at private funding sources but when these are added, the difficulties in charting funding for prevention activities as separate from other activities become even more pronounced.

The MIJJIT Study also found that States had invested significant funds in local government delinquency prevention prograins. As the study notes, "It appears from the findings that states are attempting to prevent and control delinquency through their school systems, an increasingly likely place to deal with delinquency prevention." Indeed, the survey found 11 states with delinquency prevention or control subsidies in the education field funneling $60.5 to local governments. New York's Youth

Development/Delinquency Prevention Subsidy, which requires a 50/50 local match for State dollars, sent $16.4 million in state funds to local governments during the year of the subsidy study.

Overall, the study identified 101 subsidy programs targeted for delinquency prevention and control. It should be remembered that these funds were strictly fiscal transfers to local governments not monies the state spent to deliver direct services or contracted with private or other vendors.

VIII. Private Sector Role in Delinquency Prevention

Historically, the private sector has played a major role in advocating for and delivering services to youth. Religious and philanthropic organizations fought for juvenile justice codes, and improved working conditions for young people. They provided homes and services for homeless and wayward youth, led the fight for protection against child abuse and were instrumental in securing mandated youth services. Delinquency prevention in its broadest interpretation has always been one of their goals, although the specific vocabulary of primary prevention rarely appears until very recent years.

As the Federal government's role in the 60s became one of more direct intervention, the traditional private, nonprofit agencies (e.g., YMCA, Girls' Clubs, Boys' Clubs) and the voluntary nonprofit organizations (e.g., Junior League, League of Women Voters) began to expand their delivery efforts. A private sector economy arose which was dependent upon Federal funding. At this same time, the "alternative" private, nonprofit agencies such as the runaway youth programs, began to emerge to serve the youth states and localities could not serve.

Throughout the 70s, Federal spending for community youth service programs increased to $15 million for a total of 45 programs. Now in the 80s, significant changes are being made in funding mechanisms due to the general state of the economy, the desire of states and localities to have more control over funding decisions, and the Administration's move to reduce Federal funding and consolidate categorical funds into block grants. With the direction of the Federal government to reduce their direct role in funding youth services, there is still a need to provide leadership and practical technical assistance, in order to encourge effective planning and coordination by the public/private partnership.

Although the general direction for both funding and decisionmaking is now clear and some of the roles and responsibilities laid out in legislation, the public/private alignment varies according to local priorities and circumstances. Once private agencies lose their "set apart" status, they will be forced to compete for local funds and at that level priorities may change frequently. The difficulties inherent in defining delinquency and in measuring the success of delinquency prevention programs may hamper their funding chances if officials view programs as non-essential and staff as adversaries at the planning table.

Nonprofit Agencies

Regardless of funding, it is likely that the private agencies will continue to make an important contribution in both planning and delivery of youth service programming because they have both experience and capacity which goverment cannot ignore or replace. Given the present financial

constraints, government alone cannot hope to plan and deliver effective service.

Nonprofits also have the ability to mount effective fundraising and resource development efforts, an ability which has become more crucial as public funds diminish. If they wish to continue their essential advocacy functions, which will not be supported by public funds, they will have to seek support for this aspect of their work as well as for direct service. New roles and relationships, refined planning and coordination mechanism, consistent standards of accountability and improved funding patterns to allow the public/private partnership to do more with less must emerge. This will insure that prevention and youth services continue to counter existing adverse social conditions. So far the effort to eliminate duplication and overlap has been a dismal failure. Given the often conflicting goals of commitment to youth service improvement and the desire to preserve programs and jobs, the present question is whether the long sought coordination can be achieved.

There are few clear predictions that less funding will be the catalyst that reduces duplication and fragmentation. One study currently being conducted by an OJJDP grantee indicates that private agencies are withdrawing from interagency relationships in order to protect their own funding and programming approaches and to concentrate on what they do best.

Options for Funding

As programs evolve and Federal funding decreases, new approaches may be necessary to guarantee adequate and continuing funding. Although not specifically delinquency prevention directed, the President's Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives is seeking to motivate corporations, foundations and private agencies to work with both government and the private sector to develop programs and incentives.

The current economic and funding climate may make it unrealistic to place the existing match requirements on local service providers. Many variations on the match requirement and on the public/private partnership are possible if foundation and corporate resources can be made available. More in-kind contributions by volunteers and corporate officials might be used as part of match requirements. In one state, the State Park Service is maintaining buildings used by a private, nonprofit as a delivery site. Vacant Federally owned properties could be used on a larger scale by nonprofit groups for youth service programs in a way similar to that now being proposed by HUD for emergency shelters. Urban enterprise zone and tax reduction incentives could be increased to encourage participation.

Nonprofit agencies have fewer incentives although some might be provided through increased funding for joint endeavors. The allocation of discretionary funds is crucial. Clearly the private sector must develop

new relationships with both state and local governments and the public sector must continue its responsibility with respect to the private sector.

Role of Foundations

Although opinions vary about the future role of the private sector, it is becoming increasingly clear that foundations and corporations will of necessity be called to expand their funding levels in order to support both public and private efforts.

Documenting contributions made by foundations to the delinquency prevention effort is difficult at best. Getting any national scope on foundation activity is limited by lack of available compiled data. Organizations such as the Council on Foundations in D.C. often cover only large foundations or those making grants in excess of $5,000. Many grants to prevention programs are small and would not be included. Those foundations which contribute to youth activities usually do so on broad-based categories of youth education, youth service, juvenile justice or child welfare. Titles from grant application or organizational program listings may not give an accurate clue to the real nature of the project. In addition, foundations and corporations usually have not formulated a limited definition for deliquency prevention and do not use the specific vocabulary or philosophy of primary prevention programming. All youth development, recreational, and educational activities may be included.

A recent study in Indiana attempted to survey foundations and to single out those funding youth services. Of the listed foundations in the State they found eight which mentioned youth services. Determining the actual dollars allocated to each type of activity was extremely difficult and necessitated individual review of financial statements and personal interviews.

Some major foundations such as Ford have for many years supported alternative education programs which have included "at risk" and special needs youth. The Clark Foundation in New York City has supported child welfare and criminal justice programs. City Foundations in Columbus and in Cleveland, Ohio have funded family strengthening programs, alternative education programs, group homes, and advocacy programs.

Role of Corporations

No comprehensive compendium is available for corporate contributions or efforts so that any discussion can give only examples. Program definitions and organizational structure also vary greatly, so that determining the level of funding available from corporations according to OJJDP accepted categories is virtually impossible.

area.

The involvement of corporations has been strongest in the youth employment Training youth for the work place is crucial to prevention and benefits both schools and industry. Corporate participation also builds a