A Review of the Status of DMC Efforts in Iowa and Virginia - April 2010

20 years OJJDP has been the single entity responsible for DMC reduction efforts. It is therefore
impossible to address the issue of how effectively states and localities are dealing with DMC
without also assessing, to some degree, the guidance they are provided by OJJDP.
Identification and Monitoring
Conclusions
With the implementation of the RRI and DMC Data Entry System, OJJDP has provided
grantees with powerful tools by which to measure DMC at the state and local levels, and has
gained for themselves a way to standardize the measurement of DMC across states. The two
states we studied in depth spend a considerable amount of time and effort calculating RRIs and
presenting RRI information. While they seem to understand that RRIs are just starting points for
addressing the DMC issue, their published materials suggest that they may be unsure about how
to proceed beyond RRI calculations.
The Manual provides a great deal of information about ways the RRI data can be used,
but it is not clear whether the information is aimed at states, localities, or both. We are
particularly concerned that states understand OJJDP’s guidance regarding the collection and
analysis of RRI data given that many states may be collecting RRI data on a limited number of
localities. For example, the Manual suggests that the requirement that states examine at least
three counties was in effect “in earlier years,” but that “more recently” states are required to
track data from all of their DMC reduction sites (p. 1-19). However, this point is not made
strongly by OJJDP in its Title II solicitations. Even if it were, it is not clear how many states
have DMC reduction activities underway in more than the three sites for which they were
required to report in the past. We are also concerned that states may be reporting DMC data not
for at least three sites, but for only three sites. In some states, three sites may encompass the vast
34