Board of State and Community Corrections

J J C UVENILE USTICE RIME P A REVENTION CT March 2013 Annual Report BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.445.5073 PHONE 916.327.3317 FAX bscc.ca.gov Leadership Excellence Support Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Annual Report to the Legislature March 2013 Board of State and Community Corrections 600 Bercut Drive Sacramento, CA 95811 http://www.bscc.ca.gov STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Board Members Jeffrey A. Beard, Chair Adele Arnold Secretary Chief Probation Officer (county under 200,000 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pop.) County of Tuolumne Daniel Stone William R. Pounders Director, Division of Adult Parole Operations, Judge Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Retired - County of Los Angeles David L. Maggard, Jr. Dean Growdon Chief of Police Sheriff (jail with RC of 200 inmates or less) Irvine Police Department County of Lassen Vacant Leroy Baca Community provider or rehabilitative treatment Sheriff (jail with RC of over 200 inmates) or services for adult offenders County of Los Angeles Susan Mauriello David Steinhart County Supervisor or Community Provider or advocate with expertise County Administrative Officer in effective programs, polices, and treatment of County of Santa Cruz at-risk youth and juvenile offenders Commonweal Linda Penner Mimi H. Silbert Chief Probation Officer (county over 200,000 Public Member pop.) Delancey Street Foundation County of Fresno Staff Patricia Mazzilli, Executive Director Scott Frizzie, Chief Deputy Director Corrections Planning & Programs Division Administration & Research Division Jean L. Scott, Deputy Director Robert Takeshta, Deputy Director Facilities Standards and Operations Division Standards & Training for Corrections Division Gary Wion, Deputy Director Evonne Garner, Deputy Director Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 An Overview of the Program 2-4  Program Administration  Program Funding  Program Evaluation  Local Planning Process Statewide Evaluation 5-10  Program Expenditures  Juvenile Justice Outcomes County Program Highlights 11-13  Funding of Evidence-Based Practices Summary 15 Appendices A. Statewide Expenditures and Allocations B. Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs C. Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 11 Program Years D. Change in County Arrest Rates per 100,000 Juveniles Age 10-17 Executive Summary T he Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) is a state funded initiative that supports juvenile probation programs with a record of reducing crime and delinquency among at-risk youth and young offenders. In fiscal year (FY) 2011/12 the JJCPA supported 141 programs implemented by counties to address locally identified needs throughout the continuum of responses to juvenile crime. This produced significant improvements in several measures of crime and delinquency for program participants. The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) is responsible for administering the JJCPA and submitting annual reports to the Legislature on: (1) program expenditures within each county; (2) outcomes of JJCPA-funded programs (Government Code Section 30061[4]); and (3) the statewide effectiveness of the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans. This report addresses each of these issues. Program Expenditures: The 56 counties participating in the JJCPA program expended or encumbered $91,053,468 in state funds in FY 2011/12 (see Appendix A: Statewide Expenditures and Allocations). Counties also spent $319,528 in interest earned on state funds and $9,451,472 in non-JJCPA funds to support program activities, for a combined total of $9,771,000. Although the JJCPA program does not have a local match requirement, the voluntary infusion of local resources demonstrates the counties’ commitment to the goals of JJCPA and significantly leverages the State’s investment in deterring youth from criminal activity. A total of 87,950 minors participated in the 141 JJCPA programs in 2011/12, which translates into a per capita cost to the State of $1,035 (see Appendix B: Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs). Juvenile Justice Outcomes: Data submitted by counties for FY 2011/12 indicate that JJCPA programs continue to have a positive impact on juvenile crime and delinquency in communities throughout California. Specifically: Youth participating in JJCPA programs had significantly lower rates of arrests for new offenses and incarceration than youth in a comparable reference group. JJCPA participants also had significantly fewer probation violations and successfully completed community service at a significantly higher rate than youth in the comparison group. Statewide effectiveness of the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans is further illustrated by program results spanning the last 11 years. These data show that youth who participated in JJCPA programs consistently had lower arrest and incarceration rates, and consistently had higher rates of completion of probation and completion of community service than comparable youth who did not receive JJCPA program services. In recent years, JJCPA program participants have also had significantly lower probation violation rates (see Appendix C: Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 11 Program Years). 1 Local Planning Process: State law requires counties to establish and maintain a multi- agency Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) for the purpose of developing, reviewing, and updating a comprehensive plan that documents the condition of the local juvenile justice system and outlines proposed efforts to fill identified service gaps. Welfare & Institutions Code Section 749.22 defines the JJCC membership. As noted above, data for the past 11 years illustrate the success of this process. 2 An Overview of the Program T he Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) program was created by the Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Chapter 353) to provide a stable funding source for local juvenile justice programs aimed at curbing crime and delinquency among at-risk youth. JJCPA involves a partnership between the State of California, 56 counties1, and various community-based organizations to enhance public safety by reducing juvenile crime and delinquency. Local officials and stakeholders determine where to direct resources through an interagency planning process; the State appropriates funds, which the Controller’s Office distributes to counties on a per capita basis; and community-based organizations play a critical role in delivering services. It is a partnership that recognizes the need for juvenile justice resources and the value of local discretion and multiagency collaboration in addressing the problem of juvenile crime in our communities. Program Administration The Legislature tasked the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), formerly the Corrections Standards Authority, with administration of JJCPA, including submission of annual legislative reports to address: program expenditures for each county; data for the six statutorily mandated outcome measures; and statewide effectiveness of the local planning process. In administering this program, the BSCC staff work closely with the local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils (JJCC) in developing and updating their comprehensive juvenile justice plans. These plans must be approved by the BSCC each year before JJCPA funds may be expended. At the request of counties, the BSCC provides technical assistance to identify and document programmatic strategies that have proven effective in reducing juvenile crime, determine appropriate evaluation designs for the proposed programs, and problem-solve on issues related to program implementation and evaluation. Program Funding As originally enacted JJCPA was supported entirely with state General Fund monies; however, funding for this program has changed significantly over time as resources have become more and more scarce. In FY 2008/09, the allocation amount for JJCPA was reduced and the funding source was changed from General Fund to Vehicle License Fee (VLF). In FY 2011/12, as part of the 2011 Public Safety Realignment 1 Alpine and Sierra Counties chose not to participate in this program due to the small amount of their expected allocations. Allocations are based, in part, on county population. 3 legislation, the Local Revenue Fund of 2011 was created. The Local Revenue Fund has a variety of subaccounts, including the Local Law Enforcement Services Account (LLESA), which is the new funding source for JJCPA. The main revenue source for LLESA is State Sales Tax. Of the total $107,083,460 allocated to counties for JJCPA in FY 2011/12, 93% came from State Sales Tax, while the remainder came from VLF. The Department of Finance is responsible for performing the annual calculation to determine allocation amounts for each county. This calculation takes into account changes in county populations. Program Evaluation The JJCPA requires funded programs to be modeled on strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness in curbing juvenile delinquency. Additionally, JJCPA requires counties to collect and report information related to annual program expenditures and juvenile justice outcomes. At the local level, these evaluation activities enable stakeholders to assess progress toward desired goals, refine their programs, and target available resources. These evaluation efforts also enable the Legislature to monitor the State’s investment in JJCPA and assess its overall impact on juvenile crime and delinquency. The data counties are statutorily required to report fall into six categories: Arrest rate; Incarceration rate; Probation violation rate; Probation completion rate; Restitution completion rate; and Community service completion rate. Individual counties only report on outcome measures applicable to their programs. For example, a truancy prevention program serving primarily middle school students would not be expected to have an impact on the completion of probation rate. In this example, the program would only report data for relevant categories. In addition to the mandated outcomes, some counties track and report on local outcomes specific to their individual programs. For example, some counties report on local outcomes related to academic achievement and conduct. Local Planning Process State policies have increasingly recognized the need to strengthen the local juvenile justice system and its array of alternatives and graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders through a comprehensive local planning process that requires probation departments to coordinate their activities with other key stakeholders. The programs funded by JJCPA address a continuum of responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders–prevention, intervention, supervision, and incarceration–and respond to specific problems associated with these populations in each county. 4 To receive the initial JJCPA allocation, each county developed a comprehensive multi- agency juvenile justice plan that included an assessment of existing resources targeting at-risk youth, juvenile offenders, and their families, as well as a local action strategy for addressing identified gaps in the continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency. Each year counties either update or modify their plan, as needed, or reapply for continuation funding for the same programs as the prior year. The application and any plan modifications must be approved by the BSCC. In an effort to ensure coordination and collaboration among the various local agencies serving at-risk youth and young offenders, JJCPA requires the county JJCC to develop and modify the plan. The JJCC is chaired by the county’s chief probation officer and comprised of representatives of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, the board of supervisors, social services, education, mental health, and community-based organizations. The JJCC meets periodically to review program progress and evaluation data. Chief probation officers and other JJCC members continue to report high levels of satisfaction with the JJCPA planning process, noting that it maximizes their ability to implement or expand successful programs tailored to the specific populations and needs of local jurisdictions. In addition to pointing out that juvenile justice planning has become more strategic, integrated, and outcome-oriented, JJCC members have underscored the value of sharing information regarding youth programs across the many disciplines involved in the JJCPA programs. As counties endeavor to effectively implement the 2011 Public Safety Realignment, this multiagency collaboration is more important than ever. 5 Statewide Evaluation Program Expenditures The counties participating in the JJCPA program expended $91,053,468 in FY 2011/12. Counties also spent $319,528 in interest earned on JJCPA funds and $9,451,472 in non-JJCPA funds to support program activities. The total expenditures on JJCPA programs were $100,824,468. Although the JJCPA program does not have a local match requirement, the voluntary infusion of local resources demonstrates the counties’ commitment to the goals of JJCPA and significantly leverages the State’s investment in deterring youth from criminal activity. A total of 87,950 minors participated in the 141 JJCPA programs in FY 2011/12, which translates into an average per capita cost to the state (JJCPA funds) of $1,035. Although per capita costs rose from the previous fiscal year ($852), they remain lower than was the case during the first year of the initiative ($1,202). See appendices A and B for county specific details on expenditures and per capita costs. Juvenile Justice Outcomes As required by law, the statewide evaluation of JJCPA focuses on six legislatively mandated outcomes: arrest rate, incarceration rate, probation violation rate; and probation, restitution, and community service completion rates. The data collected by counties on these six variables continue to indicate that JJCPA programs are having the intended effect of curbing juvenile crime and delinquency in California.2 Statewide results for the six legislatively mandated outcomes for FY 2011-12 are shown in Table A. All results are averages across programs for rates measured as percentages (e.g., percent of youth with one or more arrest). As has been the practice since the inception of JJCPA, programs included in the computation of these averages are those that reported results for a minimum of 15 Program Juveniles and 15 Reference Group youth.3 As reported in Table A, average rates for Program Juveniles for the outcomes of arrest rate, incarceration rate, probation violation rate, and rate of completion of community service are all statistically significantly different in the desired direction from the average rates for Reference Group youth4. The rates of completion of probation were essentially the same for the two groups, and contrary to findings in any previous year, the rate of 2For most outcomes, counties assess their progress by comparing the results for participating minors and a reference group (i.e., participants prior to entering the program, prior program participants, juveniles comparable to those who received program services or some other external reference group). The length and timing of the evaluation periods vary from program to program. For example, one program might compare the arrest rate of participants for the three-month period prior to program entry with their arrest rate during the first three months of the program, whereas another program might use a longer time period and compare the arrest rate prior to program entry with the arrest rate following program exit. 3 This restriction is applied to protect against the calculation of statewide average rates from being inappropriately influenced by individual program rates that are based on very few cases and are thus subject to extreme fluctuations from year to year. 4 Per standard practice, statistically significant differences are those with a probability of .05 or less of occurring by chance (p≤.05). 6 completion of restitution was significantly higher for Reference Group youth than for the Program Juveniles. TABLE A Results for Legislatively-Mandated Juvenile Justice Outcomes Average Number of Program Reference Outcome Measure Programs Juveniles Group Arrest Rate* 108 25.3% 30.5% Incarceration Rate* 111 23.3% 27.7% Completion of Probation 95 27.3% 26.9% Probation Violation Rate* 85 27.4% 32.3% Completion of Restitution* 64 25.5% 29.8% Completion of Community Service* 54 47.7% 41.5% *Statistically significant group differences As JJCPA funding for established programs has continued over the years, more and more counties have opted to switch from using an outside group of juveniles as the Reference Group, to using the Program Juveniles from a previous time period (usually the previous fiscal year) as the Reference Group. This permits across year comparisons of program outcomes. In many instances, counties have no expectation that program outcomes will improve from year to year, given that no significant changes are expected in the program and/or the youth served by the program. Thus, a large percentage of counties now expect “No Change” in program outcomes across years. All such programs (i.e., those where no differences are expected in program outcomes for the Program Juveniles and the Reference Group youth) are included in the results reported in Table A. Table B shows the results for the legislatively-mandated outcomes for just those programs where the counties have expressed the expectation than Program Juveniles will achieve better results that Reference Group Juveniles. While the pattern of statistically significant results closely mirrors those reported in Table A, the average rate of completion of probation is now significantly higher for the Program Group Juveniles (34.7%) than Reference Group Juveniles (27.8%). Further, the magnitude of the group differences for all outcomes is larger than those reported in Table A. For example, for all programs (Table A) the average arrest rate for the Program Juveniles is 25.3% and the average arrest rate for the Reference Group Juveniles is 30.5% - a difference of 5.2%. When results for the two groups are reported for just those programs where there is an expectation that the Program Juveniles will have a lower arrest rate (Table B), the difference in the average arrest rates is 11% (26.9% for Program Juveniles and 37.9% for Reference Group Juveniles). 7 TABLE B Results for Legislatively-Mandated Juvenile Justice Outcomes for Programs with Expectation that Program Group Juveniles Will Achieve Superior Results Average Number of Program Reference Outcome Measure Programs Juveniles Group Arrest Rate* 50 26.9% 37.9% Incarceration Rate* 48 20.1% 29.5% Completion of Probation* 35 34.7% 27.8% Probation Violation Rate* 35 26.6% 32.1% Completion of Restitution* 20 28.9% 36.4% Completion of Community Service* 22 50.6% 41.1% *Statistically significant group differences On balance, results for the six legislatively-mandated outcomes are very similar to those obtained in previous years, with the exceptions being that the rates of completion of probation for the two groups were not significantly different (although the completion of probation rate for Program Juveniles was significantly higher for those programs where a higher completion rate was expected for Program Juveniles), and Reference Group youth achieved a significantly higher rate of completion of restitution than Program Juveniles. This later finding is unusual, in that it has never occurred previously; however, there is no additional information available to explain this finding. A further indication of the year-to-year consistency in results is illustrated in the following two charts. Both charts provide graphic illustrations of the consistency of results for the outcome of arrest rate. Chart A graphs the average rates for Program Juveniles and Reference Group Juveniles for all programs. Chart B graphs the same rates for just those programs where Program Juveniles were expected to have lower arrest rates. In both instances, the years covered by the graphs span FY 2001/2002 to FY 2011/2012. As indicated in Chart A, the arrest rate for Program Juveniles has been lower than that for Reference Group Juveniles in every year since the inception of the JJCPA Program. Across years, the percent of Program Juveniles arrested has averaged approximately 25%, while for Reference Group Juveniles the percent arrested has averaged approximately 32%, and in every year the percent arrested for Program Juveniles has been significantly lower than that for Reference Group Juveniles. 8 CHART A Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): All Programs As reflected in Chart B, in those programs where the Program Juveniles were expected to achieve significantly lower arrest rates than Reference Group Juveniles, the differences in arrest rates are even more dramatic. For these programs, the percent of Program Juveniles arrested has averaged approximately 26% and the percent of Reference Group Juveniles arrested has averaged approximately 37%. 9 CHART B Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): Programs with Expectation that Program Group Juveniles Will Achieve Superior Results Similar charts for each of the six mandated outcomes are presented in Appendix C. As reflected in these charts, the results for incarceration rate, completion of probation rate, and completion of community service rate are highly similar to those for arrest rate, with Program Juveniles consistently performing better than Reference Group Juveniles on these outcomes. In contrast, whereas completion of restitution rates were consistently higher for Program Juveniles in the early years, in more recent years this has not been the case. And, while probation violation rates for the two groups were highly similar for many years, in the last few years these rates have been higher for Reference Group Juveniles. Chart C shows the results for all outcomes when averaged over the 11 program years for which data are available. As would be expected, for those outcomes for which the year-to-year outcome results are highly consistent–arrest rate, incarceration rate, rate of completion of probation, and completion of community service rate–the differences in the average rates achieved for the Program Juveniles and Reference Group Juveniles are also the greatest. And, for those outcomes where year-to-year group differences have not been as consistent–probation violation rate and rate of completion of restitution–the differences in the average rates between the Program Juveniles and the Reference Group Juveniles are not as large. 1 0 CHART C OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 11 PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS) Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles 46.6% 40.0% 31.9% 30.2% 30.7% 28.8% 28.1% 27.0% 25.7% 25.1% 23.1% 21.4% Arrest Rate Incarceration Completion Probation Completion Completion Rate of Probation Violation of Restitution of Rate Rate Rate Community Service Rate The enabling legislation requires that all counties report on the annual countywide arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles age 10 to 17. Results for this measure are presented for the most recent reporting year (2011) in Appendix D. At the individual county level, the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles can vary significantly from year-to-year, especially in counties having small juvenile populations. Nevertheless, as reflected in the figures in Appendix D, for all but 3 of the 56 counties that receive JJCPA funding, the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles was lower in 2011 than in 2010. Furthermore, for all 56 counties combined, the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles decreased from 4,153 in 2010 to 3,359 in 2011. This is the 10th year-to-year decline that has occurred in the 11 years that annual reports have been submitted to the Legislature on JJCPA. The 19.1% decline in arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles from 2010 to 2011 is the largest one year percentage decline that has occurred during the life of the program. 1 1 County Program Highlights During FY 2011/12, JJCPA funded 141 programs across 56 counties. The funding eligibility criteria inherent in the JJCPA program underscore the importance of utilizing research to determine which programs are most effective. Currently, in the fields of criminal and juvenile justice there is no topic receiving more attention than the use of evidence-based practices. There are both financial and humanitarian reasons for this trend. Most notably, recent research has clearly shown that the use of mis-matched interventions can result in worse outcomes for offenders than no intervention at all. It is only through the routine use of validated risk and needs assessments that we can facilitate the best possible results for offenders and the most efficient use of scarce resources. It is important to note though, that it is not enough to simply administer these assessments. It is imperative that results be used to guide development of appropriate sanctions and the best course of treatment for each individual offender. The topic of evidence-based practices is not new. In 1996, the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the University of Colorado at Boulder designed and launched a national violence prevention initiative to identify and replicate effective violence prevention programs. The project, called Blueprints for Violence Prevention, identifies prevention and intervention programs that meet a strict scientific standard of program effectiveness based on two levels of review and scrutiny. Blueprint programs deemed “model” or “promising” have effectively reduced adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and/or substance abuse. The work undertaken in this area has been instrumental in providing communities with a set of demonstrated effective programs. It should be recognized there are other organizations besides CSPV that contribute to the body of work related to evidence-based programs and have identified additional programs as effective, promising, exemplary, top tier, etc. However, it should also be noted that Blueprints programs continue to undergo the most rigorous evaluation, which is the reason why the BSCC chose the list of Blueprints programs to be the focus of the BSCC’s program highlights this year. Funding of Evidence-Based Practices Given the enactment of recent legislation and the field’s focus on evidence-based practices, this year’s review of county JJCPA reports included identification of counties that are using JJCPA funds to support Blueprints designated model programs. Our review revealed that a number of counties are using Blueprints programs and still more are using other recognized evidence-based practices or programs. The law that established JJCPA includes a requirement that funded programs “be based on 1 2 programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency.” The remainder of this section will highlight two Blueprints “model” programs and how JJCPA funds are being used to implement them in a few counties. While this information is related solely to the expenditure of JJCPA funds, it should be noted that many more counties are likely using evidence-based practices that are funded through other sources. Functional Family Therapy (FFT)5: Dr. James Alexander, along with Dr. Bruce Parsons, developed the FFT treatment model. In turn, Dr. Alexander founded the organization FFT Inc. to disseminate the model and provide training to implementing organizations. FFT is a short-term intervention program that is conducted in both clinical and home settings and can also be provided in schools, child welfare facilities, probation and parole offices/aftercare systems, and mental health facilities. FFT is an outcome-driven, strength-based model for youth who have demonstrated the full range of maladaptive, acting out behaviors and related syndromes. The core of FFT is its focus and assessment of risk and protective factors that impact the youth and his or her environment, with specific attention paid to intrafamilial and extrafamilial factors, and how they present within and influence the therapeutic process. The key to FFT’s effectiveness is an emphasis on enhancing protective factors while reducing risk, including the risk of treatment termination. FFT relies on a period of pre-treatment followed by a series of progressive steps which build upon each other. Those steps are: Engagement emphasizes factors that protect youth and families from early program dropout; Motivation changes maladaptive emotional reactions and beliefs, and increases alliance, trust, hope, and motivation for lasting change; Assessment clarifies individual, family system, and larger system relationships, especially the interpersonal functions of behavior and how they relate to change techniques; Behavior Change provides communication training, specific tasks and technical aids, basic parenting skills, problem solving and conflict management skills, contracting and response-cost techniques; and Generalization guides family case management through individualized family functional needs, their interface with community-based environmental constraints and resources, and the alliance with the FFT therapist/Family Case Manager. In Sonoma County two community-based organizations (CBOs) administer FFT to engage and motivate youth and families to change their communication, interaction, and problem solving skills. Both CBOs have years of experience delivering FFT-based services for Probation and the Human Services Department. Interventions delivered 5 The description of FFT provided in this report was taken largely from the websites of FFT Inc. and the University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 1 3 through FFT seek to strengthen the ability of families to resolve the problems they face through reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors. Currently, Sonoma County uses FFT for youth who are assessed as moderate-high or high risk to reoffend. Plans are in place to expand the delivery of FFT in order to prevent at-risk youth from entering and/or penetrating into the juvenile justice system by identifying and addressing pre-delinquency issues in the context of youths’ family, friends, and support systems. Multisystemic Therapy (MST)6: In 1992, under the leadership of Dr. Scott Henggeler, the Family Services Research Center at the Medical University of South Carolina was formed to pursue the development, validation, and dissemination of treatments for youth with serious clinical problems. The focus was on taking therapy to the youth instead of taking youth to the therapy. In 1996, MST Services, a university licensed organization, was formed to provide dissemination of MST, as well as implementation assistance, initial and ongoing clinical training, and program quality assurance support services. MST is an intensive family and community-based treatment that addresses the multiple determinants of serious antisocial behavior in juvenile offenders. The multisystemic approach views individuals as being nested within a complex network of interconnected systems that encompass individual, family, and extrafamilial (peer, school, neighborhood) factors. Intervention may be necessary in any one or a combination of these systems. MST is provided using a home-based model of service delivery. The primary goal of MST is to empower parents with the skills and resources needed to independently address the difficulties that arise in raising teenagers and to empower youth to cope with family, peer, school, and neighborhood problems. Within a context of support and skill building, the therapist places developmentally appropriate demands on the adolescent and family for responsible behavior. Intervention strategies are integrated into a social ecological context and include strategic family therapy, structural family therapy, behavioral parent training, and cognitive behavior therapies. Similarly, the Sacramento County Probation Department has a long history of contracting with Stanford Youth Solutions (previously Stanford Home for Children) to provide FFT using multiple sources of funding including, but not limited to the following: Medi-Cal, Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding, and Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. In addition, for the past five years, the Sacramento County Probation Department has contracted with River Oak Center for Children to provide MST using funding that includes, but is not limited to the following: Medi-Cal, Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant, Mental Health Services Act, Youthful Offender Block Grant, Second Chance Act Juvenile Reentry Demonstration Project Grant, Title II Formula Block Grant, and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. Youth are referred to either FFT or MST depending on their age, risk levels, criminogenic needs, and dynamic factors that are either pushing (FFT) or pulling (MST) them out of the home. 6 The description of MST provided in this report was taken largely from the websites of MST Services and the University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 1 4 Both FFT and MST have parent organizations that collect provider data and monitor them for fidelity to the intervention. The Sacramento County Probation Department's first "Effective Practices Report" dated June 2012 examined short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes for both FFT and MST. The analysis was conducted on 2010 data, as this was the first year that solid juvenile data was available by risk level. Participation was found to be adherent to the risk principle of concentrating limited resources on higher risk offenders who will generate more return on the investment. Both FFT and MST demonstrated high participant completion rates around 75%, positive intermediate outcomes across a variety of family and social domains, and low recidivism rates from intervention start date through 6 months out. Low overall participant numbers limit the interpretation of longer-term recidivism data until data sets from multiple years can be combined. Los Angeles County: For juvenile offenders who demonstrate serious antisocial behavior, Los Angeles County offers MST to provide these offenders with intensive family and community-based treatment services and support through the use of a therapy team. Services are holistic and are directed toward all environmental systems―psychological, social, educational, and material needs―that impact juvenile offenders and their families. 1 5 Summary During FY 2011/12, 56 counties participated in the JJCPA program. Those counties spent $91,053,468 in JJCPA funds to provide 141 programs serving 87,950 juveniles, with a per capita cost of $1,035 (JJCPA funds only). Youth participating in JJCPA programs during FY 2011/12 had better outcomes than youth in comparison groups. Specifically, youth in JJCPA programs had significantly lower rates of arrests for new offenses, probation violations, and subsequent incarcerations. In addition, they completed community service at a significantly higher rate. Moreover, program data for the past 11 years show that youth who participate in JJCPA programs consistently had lower arrest and incarceration rates, and consistently had higher rates of completion of probation and community service. While the JJCPA-funded programs were as varied as California’s many counties, the common thread was the adherence to programs with proven effectiveness. The funding eligibility criteria prescribed by state law compels counties to limit JJCPA spending to “programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency.” Although this requirement has been in place for 11 years, it is especially relevant in light of the new responsibilities of the BSCC to facilitate the use of evidence- based practices in California. As BSCC continues to build its capacity to identify, promote and provide technical assistance regarding evidence-based programs, practices and strategies, greater emphasis will be placed on assisting counties with expanding the use of EBP within their JJCPA programs. It is anticipated that such an emphasis will only further the successes already realized in the JJCPA program. 1 6 APPENDIX A: Statewide Expenditures and Allocations7 State Fund Interest Non-JJCPA Total State Fund County Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Allocations Alameda $4,534,426 $9,483 $0 $4,543,909 $4,342,507 Amador $112,128 $36 $85,648 $197,812 $108,226 Butte $580,500 $0 $186,041 $766,541 $632,005 Calaveras $105,000 $196 $0 $105,196 $130,442 Colusa $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $61,642 Contra Costa $2,730,274 $9,166 $1,131,401 $3,870,841 $3,014,787 Del Norte $0 $0 $0 $0 $81,628 El Dorado $467,173 $570 $0 $467,743 $520,984 Fresno $2,240,511 $0 $0 $2,240,511 $2,684,083 Glenn $83,405 $0 $0 $83,405 $80,712 Humboldt $405,480 $1,236 $1,144,231 $1,550,947 $386,141 Imperial $503,248 $616 $0 $503,864 $503,171 Inyo $40,684 $0 $0 $40,684 $53,195 Kern $2,131,849 $6,139 $0 $2,137,988 $2,417,630 Kings $390,382 $27,136 $0 $417,518 $437,817 Lake $161,863 $782 $0 $162,645 $184,941 Lassen $91,350 $0 $60,800 $152,150 $98,708 Los Angeles $23,638,062 $95,644 $0 $23,733,706 $28,144,844 Madera $400,037 $0 $0 $400,037 $433,775 Marin $525,312 $0 $0 $525,312 $727,079 Mariposa $46,218 $0 $0 $46,218 $52,130 Mendocino $207,314 $850 $0 $208,164 $251,779 Merced $733,987 $3,753 $80,995 $818,735 $736,477 Modoc $24,515 $0 $0 $24,515 $27,705 Mono $21,834 $0 $0 $21,834 $40,846 Monterey $942,127 $11,251 $1,394,709 $2,348,087 $1,196,244 Napa $298,058 $0 $0 $298,058 $392,923 Nevada $160,383 $878 $115,699 $276,960 $282,936 Orange $8,499,544 $0 $470,251 $8,969,795 $8,649,458 Placer $924,181 $0 $98,962 $1,023,143 $1,005,953 Plumas $42,852 $1,002 $28,948 $72,802 $57,166 Riverside $4,468,739 $0 $0 $4,468,739 $6,331,178 Sacramento $2,528,218 $7,110 $191,786 $2,727,114 $4,077,581 San Benito $134,747 $0 $0 $134,747 $158,778 San Bernardino $4,335,546 $17,720 $0 $4,353,266 $5,859,059 San Diego $9,037,598 $31,685 $2,197,406 $11,266,689 $8,903,578 San Francisco $1,794,678 $9,920 $0 $1,804,598 $2,320,389 San Joaquin $1,260,189 $0 $0 $1,260,189 $1,972,337 San Luis Obispo $680,555 $0 $0 $680,555 $773,537 San Mateo $1,629,665 $0 $690,685 $2,320,350 $2,068,835 Santa Barbara $850,549 $970 $255,701 $1,107,220 $1,216,659 Santa Clara $5,132,493 $0 $0 $5,132,493 $5,131,037 Santa Cruz $728,006 $0 $0 $728,006 $754,879 Shasta $450,614 $0 $181,025 $631,639 $507,927 Siskiyou $56,131 $879 $0 $57,010 $128,703 Solano $1,324,620 $0 $0 $1,324,620 $1,183,315 Sonoma $1,068,559 $3,320 $0 $1,071,879 $1,390,615 Stanislaus $328,795 $0 $832,892 $1,161,687 $1,477,856 Sutter $128,474 $876 $28,992 $158,342 $273,484 Tehama $144,640 $0 $0 $144,640 $182,561 Trinity $39,451 $620 $0 $40,071 $39,547 Tulare $656,059 $7,106 $0 $663,165 $1,275,603 Tuolumne $144,358 $0 $0 $144,358 $157,741 Ventura $2,439,266 $70,584 $275,300 $2,785,150 $2,364,818 Yolo $477,032 $0 $0 $477,032 $575,969 Yuba $121,789 $0 $0 $121,789 $206,909 TOTALS $91,053,468 $319,528 $9,451,472 $100,824,468 $107,083,460 7 Alpine and Sierra counties did not apply for JJCPA funding; Del Norte had no JJCPA expenditures during the 2011/2012 fiscal year. 1 APPENDIX B: Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs Program Per Capita Costs Cou nty Progr ams Participants JJCPA Funds All Funds Alameda 1 641 $7,073.99 $7,088.78 Amador 1 91 $1,232.18 $2,173.76 Butte 2 740 $784.46 $1,035.87 Calaveras 2 69 $1,521.74 $1,524.58 Colusa 1 62 $806.45 $806.45 Contra Costa 3 909 $3,003.60 $4,258.35 El Dorado 1 380 $1,229.40 $1,230.90 Fresno 7 1,009 $2,220.53 $2,220.53 Glenn 1 48 $1,737.60 $1,737.60 Humboldt 2 193 $2,100.93 $8,035.99 Imperial 1 107 $4,703.25 $4,709.01 Inyo 2 1,335 $30.47 $30.47 Kern 2 511 $4,171.92 $4,183.93 Kings 1 90 $4,337.58 $4,639.09 Lake 1 41 $3,947.88 $3,966.95 Lassen 3 698 $130.87 $217.98 Los Angeles 14 31,400 $752.80 $755.85 Madera 1 101 $3,960.76 $3,960.76 Marin 3 243 $2,161.78 $2,161.78 Mariposa 1 347 $133.19 $133.19 Mendocino 1 57 $3,637.09 $3,652.00 Merced 1 138 $5,318.75 $5,932.86 Modoc 1 3 $8,171.67 $8,171.67 Mono 1 7 $3,119.14 $3,119.14 Monterey 7 4,202 $224.21 $558.80 Napa 2 172 $1,732.90 $1,732.90 Nevada 3 162 $990.02 $1,709.63 Orange 8 3,140 $2,706.86 $2,856.62 Placer 3 788 $1,172.82 $1,298.40 Plumas 1 159 $269.51 $457.87 Riverside 1 1,370 $3,261.85 $3,261.85 Sacramento 2 335 $7,546.92 $8,140.64 San Benito 1 25 $5,389.88 $5,389.88 San Bernardino 4 13,352 $324.71 $326.04 San Diego 3 5,011 $1,803.55 $2,248.39 San Francisco 5 1,447 $1,240.28 $1,247.13 San Joaquin 2 1,255 $1,004.13 $1,004.13 San Luis Obispo 2 468 $1,454.18 $1,454.18 San Mateo 5 990 $1,646.13 $2,343.79 Santa Barbara 2 425 $2,001.29 $2,605.22 Santa Clara 4 7,078 $725.13 $725.13 Santa Cruz 2 481 $1,513.53 $1,513.53 Shasta 4 382 $1,179.62 $1,653.51 Siskiyou 1 141 $398.09 $404.33 Solano 2 74 $17,900.27 $17,900.27 Sonoma 6 563 $1,897.97 $1,903.87 Stanislaus 2 688 $477.90 $1,688.50 Sutter 1 44 $2,919.86 $3,598.68 Tehama 1 22 $6,574.55 $6,574.55 Trinity 1 22 $1,793.23 $1,821.41 Tulare 3 3,214 $204.13 $206.34 Tuolumne 1 44 $3,280.86 $3,280.86 Ventura 4 2,270 $1,074.57 $1,226.94 Yolo 2 61 $7,820.20 $7,820.20 Yuba 2 345 $353.01 $353.01 All Counties 141 87,950 $1,035.29 $1,146.38 2 APPENDIX C: Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 11 Program Years Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year) All Programs Programs Where Arrest Rate Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles 3 Incarceration Rates (Percent Arrest) by Program Year All Programs Program Where Incarceration Rate Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles 4 Completion of Probation Rates by Program Year All Programs Programs Where Completion of Probation Rate Expected to be Higher for Program Juveniles 5 Probation Violation Rates by Program Year All Programs Programs Where Probation Violation Rate Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles 6 Completion of Restitution Rates by Program Year All Programs Programs Where Completion of Restitution Rate Expected to be Higher for Program Juveniles 7 Completion of Community Service Rates by Program Year All Programs Programs Where Community Service Completion Rate Expected to be Higher for Program Juveniles 8 APPENDIX D: Change in County Arrest Rates Per 100,000 Juveniles Age 10-17 County 2010 2011 Change Percent Change Alameda 3,457 2,633 -824 -23.8% Amador 2,643 2,118 -525 -19.9% Butte 5,258 4,912 -346 -6.6% Calaveras 5,673 4,902 -771 -13.6% Colusa 3,189 3,394 205 6.4% Contra Costa 2,598 2,311 -287 -11.1% Del Norte 4,583 4,557 -26 -0.6% El Dorado 3,669 3,194 -476 -13.0% Fresno 4,768 3,824 -944 -19.8% Glenn 6,276 5,744 -532 -8.5% Humboldt 7,223 5,670 -1,553 -21.5% Imperial 5,250 3,578 -1,672 -31.8% Inyo 3,611 2,208 -1,402 -38.8% Kern 4,443 3,929 -514 -11.6% Kings 9,035 7,842 -1,193 -13.2% Lake 6,463 6,169 -294 -4.6% Lassen 5,882 2,766 -3,117 -53.0% Los Angeles 3,452 2,715 -737 -21.4% Madera 2,417 2,416 -2 -0.1% Marin 5,678 4,696 -982 -17.3% Mariposa 6,042 3,644 -2,398 -39.7% Mendocino 5,058 4,249 -810 -16.0% Merced 7,355 7,035 -320 -4.4% Modoc 9,132 4,125 -5,007 -54.8% Mono 1,321 1,787 466 35.3% Monterey 4,957 4,660 -298 -6.0% Napa 3,677 2,899 -778 -21.2% Nevada 3,943 3,437 -506 -12.8% Orange 3,812 3,071 -742 -19.5% Placer 3,792 2,236 -1,556 -41.0% Plumas 5,525 3,934 -1,591 -28.8% Riverside 2,948 2,539 -409 -13.9% Sacramento 3,192 2,616 -576 -18.1% San Benito 4,801 2,946 -1,855 -38.6% San Bernardino 5,001 4,162 -838 -16.8% San Diego 4,557 3,749 -807 -17.7% San Francisco 4,148 3,742 -406 -9.8% San Joaquin 4,610 3,817 -793 -17.2% San Luis Obispo 3,720 2,877 -843 -22.7% San Mateo 3,590 3,088 -502 -14.0% Santa Barbara 6,093 4,335 -1,758 -28.9% Santa Clara 5,811 4,109 -1,702 -29.3% Santa Cruz 5,333 4,692 -641 -12.0% Shasta 7,671 6,305 -1,366 -17.8% Siskiyou 6,162 4,678 -1,483 -24.1% Solano 5,939 5,056 -883 -14.9% Sonoma 4,584 3,823 -761 -16.6% Stanislaus 3,592 2,652 -940 -26.2% Sutter 4,840 3,261 -1,579 -32.6% Tehama 4,809 3,948 -862 -17.9% Trinity 1,342 2,453 1,111 82.8% Tulare 6,367 5,319 -1,048 -16.5% Tuolumne 4,671 3,715 -956 -20.5% Ventura 6,402 4,965 -1,437 -22.4% Yolo 5,653 4,468 -1,185 -21.0% Yuba 2,928 2,786 -142 -4.8% All JJCPA Counties 4,153 3,359 -794 -19.1% 9