BSCC
Board of State and Community Corrections
Read the report at Board of State and Community Corrections ↗
J J C
UVENILE USTICE RIME
P A
REVENTION CT
March 2014
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 2014
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
Linda M. Penner, Chair
Board of State and Community Corrections
Jeffrey A. Beard Adele Arnold
Secretary Chief Probation Officer (county under 200,000 pop.)
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 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
Dean Growdon David L. Maggard, Jr.
Sheriff (jail with RC of 200 inmates or less) Chief of Police
County of Lassen Irvine Police Department
Geoff Dean Scott Budnick
Sheriff (jail with RC over 200 inmates) Community provider or rehabilitative treatment
County of Ventura or services for adult offenders
Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Susan Mauriello David Steinhart
County Supervisor or Community Provider or advocate with expertise in effective
County Administrative Officer programs, polices, and treatment of at-risk youth and
County of Santa Cruz juvenile offenders
Commonweal
Michelle Brown Mimi H. Silbert
Chief Probation Officer (county over 200,000 pop.) Public Member
County of Fresno Delancey Street Foundation
Staff
Kathleen T. Howard, Executive Director
Tracie L. Cone, Communications Director
Robert J. Takeshta, Deputy Director William J. Crout, Deputy Director
Administration & Research Division Corrections Planning & Programs Division
Gary Wion, Deputy Director Evonne Garner, Deputy Director
Facilities Standards & Operations Division Standards & Training for Corrections Division
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
An Overview of the Program 2-4
Program Administration
Program Funding
Program Evaluation
Local Planning Process
Statewide Evaluation 5-11
Program Expenditures
Juvenile Justice Outcomes
Summary 12
Appendices
A. Statewide Expenditures and Budgeted Funds
B. Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs
C. Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 12 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) was created by the Crime
Prevention Act of 2000 to provide a stable funding source for local juvenile justice
programs aimed at curbing crime and delinquency among at-risk youth.
The number of juveniles arrested in California reached an all-time low in 2011 with
149,563 taken into custody. While many never again come in contact with the public
safety system, in FY 2012-2013 more than 86,000 minors required therapeutic
approaches.
In FY 2012-2013, $107.1 million in JJCPA funding supported 149 programs in 56
participating counties (Alpine and Sierra counties opt out). Programs that resulted in
lower crime rates among juveniles include intensive family interventions, after-school
programs for at-risk teens, gang and truancy prevention, job training and diversion
programs.
State law compels that counties provide programs that have been demonstrated to be
effective in reducing delinquency. Per capita spending by counties ranges from $9,200
in Modoc County to $328 in San Bernardino County and $295 in Yuba County -- often
because of economies of scale.
Since the inception of the JJCPA, programs it funds have consistently proven effective
at helping youth rehabilitate, and this report year is no exception. This report will show
that youth participating in JJCPA programs had lower rates of arrest (23.8 percent) and
incarceration (24.7 percent) compared to youth in a comparable reference group (27.8
percent and 27.8 percent respectively). They also had fewer probation violations and
completed probation at a rate of nearly 30 percent, while the comparison group
averaged just over 25 percent.
The data show that youth that do not participate in the programs are consistently 20 to
30 percent more likely to be arrested than youth in JJCPA-funded programs.
Like the more recently implemented adult realignment, the JJCPA is a collaboration
between state, locals and stakeholders. Local officials and stakeholders determine
where to direct resources through an interagency planning process. The State
appropriates funds that the Controller’s Office distributes to counties based on
population. Community-based organizations deliver services.
This partnership acknowledges the value the State places on local discretion and
multiagency collaboration in addressing the problem of juvenile crime in our
communities.
1
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) with
administration of JJCPA, including submission of annual legislative reports to provide
information regarding:
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 local agencies. 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
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
1
Alpine and Sierra Counties have historically chosen not to participate in this program due to the small amount of their expected
allocations. Allocations are based, in part, on county population.
2
JJCPA is the Vehicle License Fee. Any shortfall in that revenue source is made up by
State Sales Tax revenue. Of the total $ 107.1 million allocated to counties for JJCPA in
FY 2012-13, 98.4 percent came from VLF, while the remainder came from State Sales
Tax.
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 legislation requires funded programs to be modeled on strategies that have
demonstrated effectiveness in curbing juvenile delinquency. Additionally, this legislation
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.
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.
3
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 their plan 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, the JJCPA legislation requires the county
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) to develop and modify the plan. The JJCC
is chaired by the county’s chief probation officer and its members include
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 have reported 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.
4
Statewide Evaluation
Program Expenditures
The counties participating in the JJCPA program expended $99,048,372 in FY 2012-13.
Counties also spent $83,743 in interest earned on JJCPA funds and $11,527,612 in
non-JJCPA funds to support program activities. The total expenditures on JJCPA
programs were $110,659,727. 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 86,266 minors participated in the 149
JJCPA programs in FY 2012-13, which translates into an average per capita cost to the
state (JJCPA funds) of $1,148. Although per capita costs rose from the previous fiscal
year ($1,035), 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, completion of probation rate, and probation violation rate are all
statistically significantly different in the desired direction from the average rates for
Reference Group youth4.
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).
5
TABLE A
Results for Legislatively-Mandated Juvenile Justice Outcomes
Average
Number of Program Reference
Outcome Measure Programs Juveniles Group
Arrest Rate* 111 23.8% 28.3%
Incarceration Rate* 111 24.7% 27.8%
Completion of Probation* 93 29.9% 25.7%
Probation Violation Rate* 83 26.6% 29.7%
Completion of Restitution 58 28.4% 27.2%
Completion of Community Service 62 44.1% 45.6%
*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 that Program Juveniles
will achieve better results than Reference Group Juveniles. The pattern of statistically
significant results mirrors those reported in Table A. 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
23.8 percent and the average arrest rate for the Reference Group Juveniles is 28.3% - a
difference of 4.5 percent. 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 10.4 percent (22.9
percent for Program Juveniles and 33.3 percent for Reference Group Juveniles).
6
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* 51 22.9% 33.3%
Incarceration Rate* 45 19.7% 29.0%
Completion of Probation* 34 36.1% 28.9%
Probation Violation Rate* 32 23.4% 28.9%
Completion of Restitution 19 35.1% 30.0%
Completion of Community Service 24 52.1% 47.5%
*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
restitution and community service were not significantly different for the two groups.
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 2001-02 to FY
2012-13.
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 percent, while for Reference Group Juveniles the percent arrested has averaged
approximately 32 percent, and in every year the percent arrested for Program Juveniles
has been significantly lower than that for Reference Group Juveniles.
7
CHART A
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): All Programs
40.0%
35.0%
d
e 30.0%
t
s
e 25.0%
r
r
A
t
20.0%
n
e 15.0%
c
e
r e 10.0%
P
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
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 percent and the percent of
Reference Group Juveniles arrested has averaged approximately 37 percent.
8
CHART B
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): Programs with Expectation
that Program Group Juveniles Will Achieve Superior Results
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
d
e 30.0%
ts
e
r 25.0%
r
A
tn 20.0%
e
c
r
e 15.0%
P
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Similar charts for each of the six mandated outcomes are presented in Appendix C. As
reflected in these charts, the results for incarceration rate and completion of probation
rate are highly similar to those for arrest rate, with Program Juveniles consistently
performing better than Reference Group Juveniles on these outcomes. In contrast,
while probation violation rates were highly similar for many years, in the last seven
years these rates have been lower for Program Juveniles.
Charts C and D show the results for all outcomes when averaged over the 12 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.
9
CHART C
OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 12 PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS)
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
31.7%
30.2%
25.9%
28.7%
25.0%
21.7%
Arrest Rate Incarceration Rate Probation Violation Rate
CHART D
OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 12 PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS)
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
46.4%
40.4%
30.5%
27.2%
28.1%
23.3%
Completion of Probation Completon of Completion of
Rate Restitution Rate Community Service
Rate
1 0
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 (2012) 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 16 of the 56 counties
that receive JJCPA funding, the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles was lower in 2012
than in 2011. Furthermore, for all 56 counties combined, the arrest rate per 100,000
juveniles decreased from 3,359 in 2011 to 2,915 in 2012. This is the 11th year-to-year
decline that has occurred in the 12 years that annual reports have been submitted to the
Legislature on JJCPA.
1 1
Summary
During FY 2012-13, 56 counties reported spending $99,048,372 in JJCPA funds to
provide 149 programs serving 86,266 juveniles, with a per capita cost of $1,148 (JJCPA
funds only).
Youth participating in JJCPA programs during FY 2012-13 had significantly better
outcomes than youth in comparison groups. Specifically, youth in JJCPA programs had
significantly lower arrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates. They also had a
significantly higher rate of completion of probation. Moreover, program data for the past
12 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.
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 12 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 2
APPENDIX A: Statewide Expenditures and Budgeted Funds5
State Fund Interest Non-JJCPA Total State Funds
County Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Budgeted
Alameda $4,424,955 $5,951 $0 $4,430,906 $4,332,026
Amador $111,986 $14 $70,482 $182,482 $107,965
Butte $611,798 $0 $185,000 $796,798 $630,480
Calaveras $158,000 $0 $0 $158,000 $130,128
Colusa $61,494 $0 $0 $61,494 $61,494
Contra Costa $2,639,879 $0 $1,102,490 $3,742,369 $3,007,511
Del Norte $4,670 $0 $0 $4,670 $81,431
El Dorado $554,004 $583 $62,006 $616,593 $519,727
Fresno $2,541,291 $0 $0 $2,541,291 $2,677,605
Glenn $65,077 $0 $0 $65,077 $80,517
Humboldt $385,210 $766 $1,083,428 $1,469,404 $385,209
Imperial $386,130 $0 $0 $386,130 $503,248
Inyo $53,067 $0 $0 $53,067 $53,067
Kern $2,588,929 $6,139 $0 $2,595,068 $2,411,795
Kings $377,940 $2,671 $0 $380,611 $402,295
Lake $184,495 $2,435 $0 $186,930 $184,495
Lassen $98,470 $0 $110,334 $208,804 $98,470
Los Angeles $23,751,138 $0 $0 $23,751,138 $20,862,579
Madera $249,280 $0 $0 $249,280 $432,728
Marin $635,508 $0 $0 $635,508 $696,460
Mariposa $52,138 $0 $0 $52,138 $52,005
Mendocino $267,901 $942 $0 $268,843 $251,172
Merced $734,699 $2,723 $167,441 $904,863 $734,699
Modoc $27,638 $0 $0 $27,638 $27,638
Mono $37,855 $0 $0 $37,855 $40,747
Monterey $1,193,357 $0 $1,369,596 $2,562,953 $1,193,357
Napa $399,381 $0 $0 $399,381 $391,975
Nevada $282,253 $1,539 $98,991 $382,783 $282,253
Orange $9,071,407 $0 $527,841 $9,599,248 $8,905,330
Placer $949,413 $0 $27,000 $976,413 $1,003,525
Plumas $51,936 $0 $32,149 $84,085 $57,028
Riverside $5,132,587 $0 $1,183,310 $6,315,897 $6,315,897
Sacramento $3,053,398 $10,311 $158,240 $3,221,949 $4,067,739
San Benito $139,830 $0 $0 $139,830 $158,400
San Bernardino $5,527,210 $17,822 $0 $5,545,032 $5,671,983
San Diego $9,911,928 $0 $4,182,707 $14,094,635 $8,716,233
San Francisco $2,944,916 $4,466 $0 $2,949,382 $2,314,788
San Joaquin $1,457,570 $0 $0 $1,457,570 $1,967,576
San Luis Obispo $748,958 $0 $0 $748,958 $773,657
San Mateo $1,997,259 $0 $229,990 $2,227,249 $2,063,842
Santa Barbara $946,931 $2,125 $224,034 $1,173,090 $1,213,722
Santa Clara $4,882,556 $0 $0 $4,882,556 $5,118,653
Santa Cruz $753,057 $0 $310,876 $1,063,933 $753,057
Shasta $470,199 $0 $181,290 $651,489 $506,731
Siskiyou $94,188 $855 $0 $95,043 $110,374
Solano $1,105,609 $0 $0 $1,105,609 $1,031,631
Sonoma $1,374,076 $2,805 $42,162 $1,419,043 $1,387,258
Stanislaus $1,131,299 $0 $165,745 $1,297,044 $1,137,540
Sutter $108,788 $0 $0 $108,788 $212,418
Tehama $165,620 $0 $0 $165,620 $182,120
Trinity $39,451 $620 $0 $40,071 $39,451
Tulare $1,009,598 $6,591 $0 $1,016,189 $1,272,524
Tuolumne $157,361 $0 $12,500 $169,861 $157,361
Ventura $2,311,299 $14,385 $0 $2,325,684 $2,359,110
Yolo $543,790 $0 $0 $543,790 $574,579
Yuba $89,595 $0 $0 $89,595 $276,070
TOTALS $99,048,372 $83,743 $11,527,612 $110,659,727 $98,981,673
5 Alpine and Sierra counties did not apply for JJCPA funding.
1
APPENDIX B: Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs
Program Per Capita Costs
County Progr ams Participants JJCPA Funds All Funds
Alameda 1 576 $7,682.21 $7,692.55
Amador 1 100 $1,119.86 $1,824.82
Butte 2 748 $817.91 $1,065.24
Calaveras 2 45 $3,511.11 $3,511.11
Colusa 1 70 $878.49 $878.49
Contra Costa 3 969 $2,724.33 $3,862.09
Del Norte 1 13 $359.23 $359.23
El Dorado 1 308 $1,798.71 $2,001.93
Fresno 7 1,363 $1,864.48 $1,864.48
Glenn 1 45 $1,446.16 $1,446.16
Humboldt 2 168 $2,292.92 $8,746.45
Imperial 2 66 $5,850.45 $5,850.45
Inyo 2 496 $106.99 $106.99
Kern 2 351 $7,375.87 $7,393.36
Kings 1 97 $3,896.29 $3,923.82
Lake 1 54 $3,416.57 $3,461.67
Lassen 3 625 $157.55 $334.09
Los Angeles 14 27,546 $862.24 $862.24
Madera 1 63 $3,956.83 $3,956.83
Marin 4 227 $2,799.59 $2,799.59
Mariposa 1 341 $152.90 $152.90
Mendocino 1 87 $3,079.32 $3,090.15
Merced 1 106 $6,931.12 $8,536.44
Modoc 1 3 $9,212.67 $9,212.67
Mono 1 17 $2,226.76 $2,226.76
Monterey 7 5,615 $212.53 $456.45
Napa 3 266 $1,501.43 $1,501.43
Nevada 3 99 $2,851.04 $3,866.49
Orange 8 2,982 $3,042.05 $3,219.06
Placer 3 885 $1,072.78 $1,103.29
Plumas 1 46 $1,129.04 $1,827.93
Riverside 1 979 $5,242.68 $6,451.38
Sacramento 3 394 $7,749.74 $8,177.54
San Benito 1 26 $5,378.08 $5,378.08
San Bernardino 4 16,881 $327.42 $328.48
San Diego 5 4,842 $2,047.07 $2,910.91
San Francisco 5 1,121 $2,627.04 $2,631.03
San Joaquin 2 933 $1,562.24 $1,562.24
San Luis Obispo 2 276 $2,713.62 $2,713.62
San Mateo 5 992 $2,013.37 $2,245.21
Santa Barbara 2 294 $3,220.85 $3,990.10
Santa Clara 5 7,446 $655.73 $655.73
Santa Cruz 2 441 $1,707.61 $2,412.55
Shasta 5 457 $1,028.88 $1,425.58
Siskiyou 1 91 $1,035.03 $1,044.43
Solano 2 120 $9,213.41 $9,213.41
Sonoma 6 481 $2,856.71 $2,950.19
Stanislaus 2 503 $2,249.10 $2,578.62
Sutter 1 27 $4,029.19 $4,029.19
Tehama 1 22 $7,528.18 $7,528.18
Trinity 1 17 $2,320.65 $2,357.12
Tulare 3 2,948 $342.47 $344.70
Tuolumne 1 53 $2,969.08 $3,204.92
Ventura 4 2,141 $1,079.54 $1,086.26
Yolo 1 101 $5,384.06 $5,384.06
Yuba 2 303 $295.69 $295.69
All Counties 149 86,266 $1,148.17 $1,282.77
2
APPENDIX C: Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 12 Program Years
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year)
All Programs
40.0%
35.0%
d
e 30.0%
t
s
e 25.0%
r
r
A
t
20.0%
n
e 15.0%
c
e
r e 10.0%
P
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Arrest Rate Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
d
e 30.0%
t
s
e
r 25.0%
r
A
t n 20.0%
e
c
r
e 15.0%
P
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
3
Incarceration Rates (Percent Arrest) by Program Year
All Programs
35.0%
30.0%
d
e 25.0%
t
a
r
e
c r 20.0%
a
c
n
I
t
15.0%
n
e
c
r 10.0%
e
P
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Program Where Incarceration Rate Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles
40.0%
35.0%
d 30.0%
e
t
a
r
e 25.0%
c
r
a
c 20.0%
n
I
t
n 15.0%
e
c
r
e 10.0%
P
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
4
Completion of Probation Rates by Program Year
All Programs
35.0%
n
o 30.0%
it
a
b
25.0%
o
r
P
e 20.0%
t
e
l
p
m 15.0%
o
C
t 10.0%
n
e
c
r e 5.0%
P
0.0%
01/0202/0303/0404/0505/0606/0707/0808/0909/1010/11 11/1212/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Completion of Probation Rate Expected to be Higher for
Program Juveniles
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
n
o
it 25.0%
a
b
o
r 20.0%
P
e
t
e 15.0%
lp
m
o 10.0%
C
t
n
e 5.0%
c
r
e
P 0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
5
Probation Violation Rates by Program Year
All Programs
40.0%
n
o
it 35.0%
a
l
o
30.0%
i
V
n
25.0%
o
it
a
b 20.0%
o
r
P 15.0%
h
t
i 10.0%
w
t
n
5.0%
e
c
r
e 0.0%
P
01/0202/0303/0404/0505/0606/0707/0808/0909/1010/1111/1212/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Probation Violation Rate Expected to be Lower for Program
Juveniles
40.0%
n
o
it 35.0%
a
lo
iV 30.0%
n
o 25.0%
it
a
b
20.0%
o
r
P
h 15.0%
t
i
w
t
10.0%
n
e
c 5.0%
r
e
P
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
6
Completion of Restitution Rates by Program Year
All Programs
45.0%
n
40.0%
o
it
35.0%
u
t
it
s 30.0%
e
R
e 25.0%
t
e
lp
20.0%
m
o
C 15.0%
t
n
e 10.0%
c
r
e
P 5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Completion of Restitution Rate Expected to be Higher for
Program Juveniles
45.0%
40.0%
n
o
it 35.0%
u
t
it
s 30.0%
e
R
e 25.0%
t
e
lp
20.0%
m
o
C 15.0%
t
n
e
c 10.0%
r
e
P
5.0%
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
7
Completion of Community Service Rates by Program Year
All Programs
60.0%
e
c
iv
r e 50.0%
S
y
t
in
u 40.0%
m
m
o
C 30.0%
e
t
e
lp
m 20.0%
o
C
t
n 10.0%
e
c
r
e
P
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Community Service Completion Rate Expected to be Higher for
Program Juveniles
60.0%
e
c
iv
r e 50.0%
S
y
t
in
u 40.0%
m
m
o
C 30.0%
e
t
e
lp
m 20.0%
o
C
t
n 10.0%
e
c
r
e
P
0.0%
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
8
APPENDIX D: Change in County Arrest Rates Per 100,000 Juveniles Age 10-17
County 2011 2012 Change Percent Change
Alameda 2,633 2,072 -561 -21.3%
Amador 2,118 1,468 -650 -30.7%
Butte 4,912 4,060 -852 -17.3%
Calaveras 4,902 2,273 -2,629 -53.6%
Colusa 3,394 2,936 -458 -13.5%
Contra Costa 2,311 1,968 -343 -14.9%
Del Norte 4,557 3,301 -1,256 -27.6%
El Dorado 3,194 2,959 -235 -7.4%
Fresno 3,824 3,338 -486 -12.7%
Glenn 5,744 7,605 1,861 32.4%
Humboldt 5,670 6,518 848 15.0%
Imperial 3,578 2,205 -1,373 -38.4%
Inyo 2,208 1,657 -551 -25.0%
Kern 3,929 3,329 -600 -15.3%
Kings 7,842 7,941 99 1.3%
Lake 6,169 6,813 644 10.4%
Lassen 2,766 4,190 1,424 51.5%
Los Angeles 2,715 2,399 -316 -11.6%
Madera 2,416 2,513 97 4.0%
Marin 4,696 3,617 -1,079 -23.0%
Mariposa 3,644 2,996 -648 -17.8%
Mendocino 4,249 3,623 -626 -14.7%
Merced 7,035 5,446 -1,589 -22.6%
Modoc 4,125 6,573 2,448 59.4%
Mono 1,787 1,732 -55 -3.1%
Monterey 4,660 4,026 -634 -13.6%
Napa 2,899 2,934 35 1.2%
Nevada 3,437 4,125 688 20.0%
Orange 3,071 2,549 -522 -17.0%
Placer 2,236 1,821 -415 -18.5%
Plumas 3,934 4,841 907 23.1%
Riverside 2,539 2,143 -396 -15.6%
Sacramento 2,616 2,120 -496 -19.0%
San Benito 2,946 2,957 11 0.4%
San Bernardino 4,162 3,300 -862 -20.7%
San Diego 3,749 3,217 -532 -14.2%
San Francisco 3,742 2,722 -1,020 -27.3%
San Joaquin 3,817 4,575 758 19.8%
San Luis Obispo 2,877 2,324 -553 -19.2%
San Mateo 3,088 2,726 -362 -11.7%
Santa Barbara 4,335 3,414 -921 -21.2%
Santa Clara 4,109 3,566 -543 -13.2%
Santa Cruz 4,692 3,725 -967 -20.6%
Shasta 6,305 6,529 224 3.5%
Siskiyou 4,678 3,069 -1,609 -34.4%
Solano 5,056 3,931 -1,125 -22.3%
Sonoma 3,823 3,245 -578 -15.1%
Stanislaus 2,652 2,548 -104 -3.9%
Sutter 3,261 4,279 1,018 31.2%
Tehama 3,948 4,094 146 3.7%
Trinity 2,453 1,914 -539 -22.0%
Tulare 5,319 4,574 -745 -14.0%
Tuolumne 3,715 3,464 -251 -6.8%
Ventura 4,965 4,367 -598 -12.0%
Yolo 4,468 3,583 -885 -19.8%
Yuba 2,786 3,150 364 13.1%
All JJCPA Counties 3,359 2,915 -444 -13.2%
9