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 2016
Annual Report
Juvenile Justice
Crime Prevention Act
Annual Report to the Legislature
March 2016
Board of State and Community Corrections
2590 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95833
http://www.bscc.ca.gov
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Board Members*
Chair, Board of State and Community Corrections......................................................................................... Linda M. Penner
The Chair of the Board is a full-time paid position appointed by the Governor and
subject to Senate Confirmation
Secretary, CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) .......................................................................... Scott Kernan
Director (A), Adult Parole Operations, CDCR ..................................................................................................... Bobby Haase
Lassen County Sheriff ..................................................................................................................................... Dean Growdon
A sheriff in charge of a local detention facility with a BSCC rated capacity of 200
inmates or less appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Ventura County Sheriff ............................................................................................................................................ Geoff Dean
A sheriff in charge of local detention facility with a BSCC rated capacity of more
than 200 inmates appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Kern County Supervisor ...................................................................................................................................... Leticia Perez
A county supervisor or administrative officer appointed by the Governor and
subject to Senate confirmation
San Bernardino County Chief Probation Officer ................................................................................... Michelle Scray Brown
A chief probation officer from a county with a population over 200,000 appointed
by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Nevada County Chief Probation Officer .............................................................................................................Michael Ertola
A chief probation officer from a county with a population under 200,000
appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Retired Judge, Solano County ................................................................................................................... Ramona J. Garrett
A judge appointed by the Judicial Council of California
Chief of Police, City Of Chula Vista ................................................................................................................. David Bejarano
A chief of police appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
Founder of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and Film Producer ........................................................................... Scott Budnick
A community provider of rehabilitative treatment or services for adult offenders
appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly
Director, Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program ...........................................................................................David Steinhart
A community provider or advocate with expertise in effective programs, policies
and treatment of at-risk youth and juvenile offenders appointed by the Senate
Committee on Rules
Chief Executive Officer and President of Delancey Street Foundation ............................................................. Mimi H. Silbert
A public member appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
BSCC Staff
Executive Director .........................................................................................................................................K athleen Howard
Communications Director ...................................................................................................................................... Tracie Cone
General Counsel ............................................................................................................................................... Aaron Maguire
Deputy Director, Corrections Planning & Programs ................................................................................................. Mary Jolls
Field Representative, Corrections Planning & Programs............................................................................. Kimberly Bushard
Research Program Specialist I, Research .................................................................................................... Anthony Jackson
* Board member composition is pursuant to Penal Code 6025
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
An Overview of the Program 2-5
Program Administration
Program Funding
Program Evaluation
Local Planning Process
Statewide Evaluation 6-18
Program Expenditures
Juvenile Justice Outcomes
County Highlights 6-18
Lassen
Marin
Sacramento
San Benito
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Sonoma
Tulare
Summary 19
Appendices
A. Government Code Section 30061
B. Statewide Expenditures and Budgeted Funds
C. Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs
D. Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 14 Program Years
E. Change in County Arrest Rates per 100,000 Juveniles Age 10-17
Executive Summary
Th e 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.
In fiscal year 2014-15, $124.5 million in JJCPA funding supported 150programs in 56
participating counties (Alpine and Sierra counties opt out).Per capita spending by these
counties ranges from $18,520 in Mendocino County to $111 in Inyo County. Some of the
variation in per capita costs is due to economies of scale.
State law requires that counties provide programs that have been demonstrated to be
effective in reducing delinquency. 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.
Since inception of the JJCPA, funded programs 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 statistically significant lower rates of arrest
(23.7 percent) and incarceration (23.0 percent) compared to youth in a comparable
reference group (28.3 percent and 27.5 percent, respectively). They also had fewer
probation violations (27.3 percent compared to 28.7 percent for the reference group)
and were more likely to complete probation (29.5 percent compared to 27.4 percent for
the reference group).
Like the more recently implemented adult Public Safety Realignment, the JJCPA is a
collaboration between the state, local agencies and stakeholders. Local officials and
stakeholders determine where to direct resources through an interagency planning
process. The State Controller’s Office distributes the appropriated JJCPA funds to
counties based on population. Local agencies and community-based organizations
deliver the 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
Th e 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. The statute that governs this program can be found in Government Code Section
30061(b)(4), which is attached as Appendix A.
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 Controller’s Office distributes the
JJCPA appropriated funds 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.
Since inception, the JJCPA program has undergone only minimal change. Existing
program structure requires that participating counties report to the Board of State and
Community Corrections (BSCC) twice annually. By May 1 of each year, counties must
submit plans of proposed expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. By October 15 of
each year, counties must submit outcomes and expenditures for the previous fiscal
year.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1468 (Statutes of 2014, Chapter 26), a Juvenile Justice Data
Working Group (JJDWG) was established and required to review the JJCPA program,
along with the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) program, in order “to recommend
options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports
that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies.” AB 1468 further
required, in part, that the JJDWG submit a report to the BSCC Board by April 30, 2015
with recommendations on how to improve or streamline reporting requirements for the
two programs. The JJDWG met this mandate and the recommendations contained in its
report are under consideration by the Governor and the Legislature. There may be
changes to the JJCPA program as a result of the work and recommendations of the
JJDWG; however, the precise nature of those changes are unknown at this time. Note
that the JJDWG was also required to prepare a Legislative Report with more expansive
recommendations. The JJDWG also met this requirement and the Legislative Report is
under the review of the Legislature and the BSCC Board.
1
Alpine and Sierra Counties have historically chosen not to participate in this program.
2
Program Administration
Government Code Section 30061requires the BSCC to administer the 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 works 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,
determines appropriate evaluation designs for the proposed programs, and problem-
solves on issues related to program implementation and evaluation.
Program Funding
As originally enacted, the JJCPA was supported entirely with state General Fund
monies; however, funding for this program has changed significantly over time as
resources have fluctuated. In fiscal year (FY) 2008-09, the allocation amount for JJCPA
was reduced and the funding source was changed from General Fund to the Vehicle
License Fee (VLF) Fund. 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 Law Enforcement Services Account, which
is the newest funding source for JJCPA. The main revenue source for JJCPA is the
VLF Fund. Any shortfall in that revenue source is made up by State Sales Tax revenue.
For FY 2014-15, the total of $107.1 million allocated to counties came from the VLF
Fund.
On September 9, 2015, counties received a supplemental allocation reflecting JJCPA
growth funding for the second year in a row. The additional $15.6 million was from
revenue generated during FY 2014-15 and became part of each county’s total allocation
for that year. However, the growth funding amount was not known until just before the
counties’ report due date and is, therefore, not included in any of the figures provided in
this report.
The California Department of Finance (DOF) is the fiduciary agent for the JJCPA
program. As such, DOF is responsible for performing the annual calculation to
determine allocation amounts for each county, including any allocations for growth. The
individual county allocation amounts take into account changes in each county’s
population.
3
Program Evaluation
The JJCPA requires funded programs to be modeled on strategies that have
demonstrated effectiveness in curbing juvenile delinquency. Additionally, the 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 the 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 report only 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 support 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 the 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.
To receive the initial JJCPA allocation, each participating 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 participating counties are required to
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.
4
In an effort to ensure coordination and collaboration among the various local agencies
serving at-risk youth and young offenders, the JJCPA requires the county Juvenile
Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) to develop and modify the county’s juvenile justice
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 is required to meet at least annually 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 also 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 $110,527,926 in FY 2014-
15. Counties also spent $52,767 in interest earned on JJCPA funds and $13,921,511 in
non-JJCPA funds to support program activities. This brings the total expenditures on
JJCPA programs to $124,502,204. 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 leverages the state’s investment in deterring
youth from criminal activity. A total of 84,450 minors participated in the 150JJCPA
programs in FY 2014-15, which translates into an average per capita cost to the state
(JJCPA funds) of $1,309. See Appendices B and C for county specific details on
expenditures and per capita costs.
Juvenile Justice Outcomes
As required by law, the statewide evaluation of the JJCPA program 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 2014-15 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 inception of the 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 and incarceration rate are 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 to a reference group (i.e.,
participants prior to entering the program, prior program participants, and 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
TABLE A
Results for Legislatively-Mandated Juvenile Justice Outcomes
Average
Number of Program Reference
Outcome Measure Programs Juveniles Group
Arrest Rate* 111 23.7% 28.3%
Incarceration Rate* 111 23.0% 27.5%
Completion of Probation 98 29.5% 27.4%
Probation Violation Rate 87 27.3% 28.7%
Completion of Restitution 53 24.9% 26.2%
Completion of Community Service 58 37.4% 40.6%
*Statistically significant group differences
As JJCPA funding for established programs has continued over the years, most
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 only 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
23.7 percent and the average arrest rate for the reference group juveniles is 28.3
percent - a difference of 4.6 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 9.2percent (25.3
percent for program juveniles and 34.5 percent for reference group juveniles).
7
TABLE B
Results for Legislatively Mandated Juvenile Justice Outcomes for Programs with
County Expectation that Program Group Juveniles Will Achieve Superior Results
Average
Number of Program Reference
Outcome Measure Programs Juveniles Group
Arrest Rate* 52 25.3% 34.5%
Incarceration Rate* 47 21.3% 31.0%
Completion of Probation 34 37.1% 29.9%
Probation Violation Rate 34 25.7% 28.8%
Completion of Restitution 18 32.2% 33.4%
Completion of Community Service 23 43.4% 45.2%
*Statistically significant group differences
On balance, results for the six legislatively mandated outcomes are very similar to those
obtained in previous years. 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
2014-15.
As indicated in Chart A, the arrest rate for program juveniles has been lower than that
for reference group juveniles in every year since 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 31 percent. 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
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
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 25percent and the percent of reference
group juveniles arrested has averaged approximately 36percent. Moreover, the
difference between the two rates has been statistically significant in every year since
program inception.
CHART B
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): Programs with County
Expectation that Program Group Juveniles Will Achieve Superior Results
9
detserrA
tnecereP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
detserrA
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Similar charts for each of the six mandated outcomes are presented in Appendix D. 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 eight years these
rates have been lower for program juveniles.
Charts C and D show the results for all outcomes when averaged over the 14 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.
CHART C
OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 14 PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS)
Reference Group Juveniles Program Group Juveniles
31.1%
Arrest Rate
24.6%
26.3%
Incarceration Rate
21.9%
30.1%
Probation Violation Rate
28.0%
1 0
CHART D
OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 14PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS)
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
44.2%
Completion of Community Service
Rate
40.1%
28.9%
Completion of Restitution Rate
27.4%
27.9%
Completion of Probation Rate
24.1%
The JJCPA 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 (2014) in Appendix E.
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 E, for all but eight counties the
arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles was lower in 2014 than in 2013. Furthermore, for all
555 counties combined, the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles decreased from 2,376 in
2013 to 2,138. This is the 13th year-to-year decline that has occurred in the 14 years
that annual reports have been submitted to the Legislature on the JJCPA program.
5 California Department of Justice’s Juvenile Arrests Report, 2014 Offense by Jurisdiction reported zeros for
Mariposa County.
1 1
County Descriptions of Highlights
In an effort to showcase some of the work being done by counties with JJCPA funds,
this year counties were offered the opportunity to highlight one or more of their JJCPA-
funded programs. Included below are the submissions the BSCC received as prepared
by the counties. It is important to note that all of the data included in this report
represent aggregate numbers and do not correlate to any of the single programs
described below.
Lassen County – Truancy Reduction Program
The Lassen County Truancy Reduction Program is designed to promote attendance
and teach the importance of education for students in all grades. Attendance is
important for the youth in our community to have consistent classroom instruction
thereby gaining the knowledge and concepts being introduced. Truant students are at a
higher-than-average risk of dropping out and creating a gateway for future introduction
into the criminal justice system. By placing importance on education and attendance,
the Probation Department has been effective in increasing overall grade-point averages
and the number of days a student attends school.
The Truancy Reduction Program can serve as an early identifier of at-risk youth in the
community. The Probation Department is able to broker services from County,
Community, and Criminal Justice partners to prevent youth from entering the
delinquency system. Probation Officers regularly make referrals to mental health, public
health, substance abuse and wraparound to provide intervention services to families in
need. This has consistently helped with decreasing juvenile crime in our community and
allows the focus to be on preventative services.
Marin County – Youth Working for Change
“Youth Working for Change” (YWC) is a vocational readiness program for youth in Marin
County and is sponsored by both the Probation Department and Marin Employment
Connections. The goal of the program is to promote employment as an opportunity for
youth who have been in trouble with the law but are interested in making changes in
their lives. The experience of employment can help to provide the self-confidence,
direction and self-reliance many of these youth can use to turn their lives around.
Youth who have been in trouble with the law and who express an interest in
employment are referred to YWC. The first step is for the youth to undergo a vocational
assessment, where their level of motivation and skills for employment are determined.
Youth who are ready to apply for employment are provided with support and counseling
in their job search, while those who require either skill building or other forms of
1 2
vocational training, are provided with these opportunities. YWC continues to provide
services to the youth after they have obtained work for the youth. YWC staff assist the
program participants with whatever challenges they may face after they are employed,
including transportation, job expenses, or other issues that arise.
Employers who participate in this program have the full support of YWC staff to ensure
referred youth have all of the support, training and skills they need to be successful in
their positions. In addition, YWC staff are available to work with employers to support
youth after they have been placed in a position. Finally, employers will be able to
contribute to their community by providing a job opportunity to a young person who has
expressed an interest and desire to make a positive change in their lives and
circumstance.
Since the program’s inception in FY 2012-13, 196 youth have been accepted and have
participated in the program. Of those 196, 114 (58%) were eventually placed into a paid
employment situation. The remainder participated in vocational preparation classes
(using the evidence-based curriculum known as “Workin’ It Out”) and/or internships
(some with stipends, some without). Of the 114 participants who obtained employment,
61 (54%) of them maintained a job for at least 3 months.
Sacramento County – Community Protection & Treatment Program
Community Protection and Treatment Program (CPTP) participants receive intensive in-
home supervision combined with evidence-based services and interventions. The
overall effectiveness of this program is enhanced by the assessment and linkage to
services upon check-in to the probation office after Court. Families do not have to seek
out services on their own, which eliminates many delays and barriers to treatment. An
individual’s risk and needs are identified through use of the Positive Achievement
Change Tool (PACT). Youth and their families are linked to services directly through the
probation office based on the PACT assessment. Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) is
provided by the River Oak Center for Children and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is
provided by Stanford Youth Solutions. MST is an intensive family and community-based
treatment program that focuses on addressing all environmental systems that impact
chronic and violent juvenile offenders —-their homes and families, schools and
teachers, neighborhoods and friends. The goal of FFT is to improve family functioning
while reducing a youth’s negative behaviors through the use of specific goals,
objectives, and family interventions. The treatment focus is family counseling, exploring
family patterns and how these patterns affect behaviors. Through the CPTP program,
these services are often provided directly in the home, which reduces many common
barriers to treatment. The team approach between the probation officers, providers and
families provides a more holistic treatment model that has shown to affect positive
change.
1 3
San Benito County – Early Intervention
San Benito County’s older Intervention Program serves juveniles on wardship probation
who are 15 years and younger. Since the program’s implementation, many families
have benefitted from the intensive supervision and resources the Probation Department
offers. Juveniles on probation are expected to report to the Probation Department
weekly, many for chemical testing. They are required to complete community service
and many are referred to San Benito County Behavioral Health for mental health and
substance abuse counseling. We also refer juveniles to a Teen Recovery Program
(sponsored through a local church) and/or to Youth Alliance (YA), and parents are
required to complete at least one parenting class. YA is a local, non-profit organization
that provides case management, employment assistance, and weekly group meetings
for juvenile participants. YA also provides parenting courses for the juvenile’s parents.
Dealing with this high-risk and high-need population can be challenging, but there are
success stories that illustrate how various agencies can come together. Many juvenile
offenders suffer from mental health challenges. For example, one such juvenile has
experienced numerous setbacks since being placed on probation. After having a mental
health breakdown at his home, his Probation Officer and a Probation Aide transported
the minor to the local hospital to receive the appropriate evaluation and services. Since
then, the minor has been consistent with his prescribed mental medications, is going to
school consistently and is more stable than he has been since being adjudged a ward.
Success with an Early Intervention caseload can come in many shapes and sizes and
cannot only be measured by successful termination of wardship. Many juveniles and
their families are participating in Family Team Meetings, which are a collaborative effort
between probation, the minor’s school and behavioral health. Though these juveniles
may continue to struggle in some aspect of their lives, they are being given a strong
support network and a positive path which can aide in their rehabilitation.
San Diego County – Community Assessment Team Prevention Program
The Community Assessment Teams (CAT) program was implemented in San Diego
County in 1998 and designed to prevent at-risk youth from entering or escalating into
the juvenile justice system. The program represents collaboration among the San Diego
County Probation Department and five community-based organizations (CBOs)
throughout the region. The strength of this program is that it is both community-based
and family-oriented and utilizes multi-disciplinary teams to provide case management to
youth. The teams are comprised of case managers, probation officers, alcohol and drug
specialists, parent educators, mental health professionals, and other specialists. Youth
are referred to the program primarily by Probation, schools, law enforcement,
community-based agencies, and self-referral. Prevention and low-level intervention
services are provided to address anger management problems, violence, alcohol and
other drug use, gang involvement, school problems, and other anti-social behaviors, as
well as many additional issues. After a brief initial screening, the youth and family may
be referred directly to services outside the program (direct connections), or a family
assessment is completed and the case manager works with the youth and family to
1 4
cooperatively develop a case plan for increasing strengths and addressing risk factors.
In 1999, the Working to Insure and Nurture Girls’ Success (WINGS) program was
incorporated into the CAT program which provides gender-responsive services to
female wards to address the increasing number of girls entering the juvenile justice
system. WINGS participants may receive services for up to nine months, which include
intensive home visitation, family conflict mediation, and gender-specific groups. The
CAT program has been nationally honored. In 2004, it received the American Probation
and Parole Association’s Excellence in Community Crime Prevention award. This award
recognizes programs that integrate community crime prevention initiatives into
traditional methods of supervision and sanctioning offenders. The success of the CAT-
WINGS program can be attributed to the early intervention (working with kids as young
as six) and improving resiliency (91% improvement for fiscal year 2014-15) of the minor
and families. In fiscal year 2014-15, Diversion services moved from the San Diego
County Department of Health and Human Services to the Probation Department under
the CAT program. This change allowed for the continuum of services for at-risk youth
county-wide to be served under the same umbrella of family-based services. This
change was positive as all diversion clients were provided with more comprehensive
wraparound services such as access to needs assessments, individual therapy, and
home visits. The change was significant as it added over 1,000 extra clients for the
CBOs to case manage while not hindering service delivery.
San Francisco County – Alternative Education
Founded in 1988 by the Delancey Street Foundation, the Life Learning Academy
Charter High School (LLA) serves youth who are involved in, or at risk of involvement in,
the juvenile justice system, and/or disconnected youth who have a number of high-risk
life issues, including school failure, trauma, serious family problems, poverty, abuse,
and substance use.
LLA’s mission is to create a nonviolent community for students who have not been
successful in traditional school settings. LLA welcomes students into an 'extended
family,' which motivates everyone to give and receive support, develop responsibility
and judgment, and build the academic, vocational and social skills necessary to be
successful.
Independent evaluation has repeatedly found LLA to be “a profoundly effective
program” with significantly reduced student recidivism, incarceration, gang involvement
and substance abuse; improved orientation toward learning; and use of nonviolent
conflict resolution skills. Based on results from a three-year comparison group study
from 1999-2001, youth who came to LLA with a history of arrest are less than half as
likely as their comparison group counterparts to recidivate while at LLA (19.4%
compared to 51.1%, respectively) and are almost half as likely to recidivate 18 months
after LLA. Furthermore, LLA youth, relative to comparison group youth, are eight times
less likely to be placed out of home and about ten times less likely to be placed in a
local or state detention facility and are three times more likely to terminate their
wardship status during the time they are at LLA and during the follow-up period.
1 5
These findings have remained remarkably consistent over the past 15 years. During the
2013-14 school year nearly half of all LLA students had contact with the juvenile justice
system before entering LLA. Among students enrolled in the 2013-14 school year with a
prior arrest history, 5% recidivated in the 6-month intervention period, and 10%
recidivated while at LLA in the 12-month intervention period.
In an effort to serve the most high-needs system-involved youth, LLA has longstanding
partnerships with numerous San Francisco public agencies, including the school district,
Juvenile Probation Department, District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office,
Juvenile Court and scores of youth-serving agencies funded by the Department of
Children, Youth and Families. Regular school-site contact between probation officers
and youth provides LLA with critical assistance in helping to ensure that youth are
successful in school, which in turn helps these youth successfully meet their probation
conditions. The critical role LLA plays is to reengage youth involved in the juvenile
justice system on a pathway to productive adulthood, using education and school
community as the vehicle. LLA provides the type of structure, support and community
that these young people need to end the downward spiral of disenfranchisement and
launch the process of self-improvement, personal achievement, and community
involvement.
LLA has been recognized as a model school by the California Department of Education
and the national Coalition of Essential Schools, and as a model program by state
juvenile justice leaders and local law enforcement department heads. In 2010, LLA was
California Charter Schools Association’s Charter School of the Year. LLA was a 2004
finalist in the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Innovations in American
Government Awards. We have provided training, tours and replication materials to
hundreds of educators and lawmakers worldwide. LLA has been supported by JJCPA
funds since 2000.
San Joaquin County – Neighborhood Service Centers
The Neighborhood Service Center (NSC) program is operated by the San Joaquin
Community Partnership for Families (CPF). NSC’s co-locate needed services, support,
and opportunities for families in under-serviced, high-risk neighborhoods. The effort
focuses on reducing the number of children that ultimately come to the attention of the
juvenile justice system and other “high-end” social services systems.
In Fiscal Year 2012-13, a mobile Neighborhood Service Center was funded to serve the
outlying areas of the county. Each of the other NSC’s is designed to serve a
geographic area of 15,000 to 20,000 residents. The Centers feature a wide range of
services and activities such as integrated service teams, food pantries, after-school
tutoring, recreation programs, and income tax assistance.
In Fiscal Year 2013-14, additional funds were allocated to Community Partnership for
Families to provide services at Reconnect, which is a day reporting center within the
Neighborhood Service Center. The additional funds also allow the Community
1 6
Partnership for Families to provide referrals for clients who are diverted from the court
process but are in need of services.
Sonoma County – Family Group Conferencing
In keeping with the restorative justice model, the Sonoma County Family Group
Conferencing Program is designed to bring together the offending youth, victims and
other impacted parties with a trained facilitator to discuss the incident. This program
encourages youth to take responsibility for their actions and make positive changes in
their lives. The program also promotes healing for those impacted. Probation partners
with community-based service providers to deliver this program. Through the Family
Group Processing process, restitution is sometimes reduced in exchange for a more
meaningful type of amends being completed, usually of the victim’s choosing.
The following short-term outcome measures were reported by community-based
provider staff:
Youth accountability/amends
• 95% of youth participating in conferences reported that they understood the
victim impact of their crime “a great deal” better.
• 97% of youth participating in conferences reported that they understood the
community impact of their crime “a great deal” better.
• 97% of youth completed their plan to repair harm and/or increase their skills.
Youth resiliency/Pro-social change
A local university conducted a study of youth participating in this service. When looking at youth
resiliency data collected via participant survey, youth showed significant improvement in internal
assets. Internal assets refer to youth perception of support from their social environment in
school, the home, and from the community. Internal assets with significant improvements were
subscales relating to caring, expectations and participation in the schools; participation in the
family; and participation in the community.
Healing for Impacted Parties
Unlike services which focus solely on the youth, this program shows evidence of impact
on victims and other impacted parties:
• 97% of victims/impacted parties responded that they were satisfied “a great
deal” with the outcome of the conference.
• 97% of victims/impacted parties responded that they experienced “a great
deal” of personal healing.
1 7
• [Mother of Offender] “We all left [youth’s] Conference feeling like an
enormous weight had been lifted off our shoulders and I have noticed a
definite positive change in [offender] overall attitude since then.”
• [Father of offender] “The conference was the most meaningful part because
everybody shared their point of view and I learned from different people the
impact and the solutions.”
Tulare County – Ember Aftercare
The Tulare County Probation Youth Facility provides short-term and long-term
programming in a dormitory setting. Release planning for the Ember Aftercare
component begins at the point of entry. Within the first week, each youth receives a
program orientation and the following assessments: the Career Scope to identify
interests and aptitudes; the SASSI, to identify substance abuse treatment needs; and
the New Freedom Change Talk Tool, which determines his/her stage of change and
needed interventions. A multi-disciplinary team consisting of representatives from the
Probation Department, the Department of Education and our medical/mental health
provider meet to develop a case plan that is custom-tailored to individual needs based
on the aforementioned assessments, in addition to risk and needs as identified in the
Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT), the youth’s educational and testing history,
and medical and/or mental health concerns.
During the program youth receive programming through the New Freedom curriculum to
address needs; attend a full day schedule of educational programming, with special
classes on Friday to meet the elective classes required for high school graduation; and
participate in a number of enrichment programs which were created based on a youth
survey of interest areas. We offer: a horticulture program through the Sequoia
Riverlands Trust, a regional, non-profit lands trust; a greenhouse and
garden/landscaping program through the Probation Department; and Food Service and
Upbeat Music programs through the Department of Education. The music program
began with guitar lessons and has expanded to include multiple instruments and vocal
instruction. Performances have been held for parents/guardians and our multi-agency
facility staff.
During the last six weeks of the residential component, youth participate in reintegration
planning for the Aftercare Component. A final multi-disciplinary staffing is held to
identify strengths, needs and barriers to success. The assigned Aftercare Officer meets
with the parents/guardians to review the case plan, and make necessary linkages to
address ongoing counseling, education and/or employment opportunities. Intensive
supervision services are provided to the youth and family during Aftercare, with a focus
on mentoring and support.
1 8
Summary
During FY 2014-15, 56 counties reported spending $110,527,926 in JJCPA funds to
provide 150programs serving 84,450 juveniles, with a per capita cost of $1,309 (JJCPA
funds only).
Youth participating in JJCPA programs during FY 2014-15 had better outcomes than
youth in comparison groups. Specifically, youth in JJCPA programs had lower arrest
and incarceration rates. They also had a higher rate of completion of probation.
Moreover, program data for the past 14 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 requires counties to limit JJCPA spending to
“programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing
delinquency.” 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 9
Appendix A: Government Code Section 30061
(See page 2 of the report)
30061.
(a) There shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to a
county for purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b) In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the
implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in
the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund.
The moneys shall be allocated as follows:
(1) Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail
construction and operation. In the case of Madera, Napa, and Santa Clara
Counties, this allocation shall be made to the county director or chief of
corrections.
(2) Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal
prosecution.
(3) Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the
county, and, in the case of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, and Contra Costa
Counties, also to the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley
Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District,
the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police
Protection and Community Services District, in accordance with the relative
population of the cities within the county and the unincorporated area of the
county, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District in the County of San Mateo,
the Bear Valley Community Services District and the Stallion Springs Community
Services District in Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District
in Siskiyou County, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community
Services District in Contra Costa County, as specified in the most recent January
estimate by the population research unit of the Department of Finance, and as
adjusted to provide, except as provided in subdivision (i), a grant of at least one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. For a
newly incorporated city whose population estimate is not published by the
Department of Finance, but that was incorporated prior to July 1 of the fiscal year
in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made, the city manager, or an
appointee of the legislative body, if a city manager is not available, and the
county administrative or executive officer shall prepare a joint notification to the
Department of Finance and the county auditor with a population estimate
reduction of the unincorporated area of the county equal to the population of the
newly incorporated city by July 15, or within 15 days after the Budget Act is
enacted, of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made.
No person residing within the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear
20
Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services
District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, or the Kensington Police
Protection and Community Services District shall also be counted as residing
within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, or
Contra Costa, or within any city located within those counties. Except as provided
in subdivision (i), the county auditor shall allocate a grant of at least one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. Moneys
allocated to the county pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained in the county
SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city pursuant to this subdivision shall be
deposited in an SLESA established in the city treasury.
(4) Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive
multiagency juvenile justice plan as provided in this paragraph. The juvenile
justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in
each county and city and county with the membership described in Section
749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If a plan has been previously
approved by the Corrections Standards Authority or, commencing July 1, 2012,
by the Board of State and Community Corrections, the plan shall be reviewed
and modified annually by the council. The plan or modified plan shall be
approved by the county board of supervisors, and in the case of a city and
county, the plan shall also be approved by the mayor. The plan or modified plan
shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of
each year.
(A) Juvenile justice plans shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following
components:
(i) An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental
health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources
that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
(ii) An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other
areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile
crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism,
truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile
substance abuse and alcohol use.
(iii) A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of
responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative
and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and
graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
(iv) Programs identified in clause (iii) that are proposed to be funded pursuant to
this subparagraph, including the projected amount of funding for each program.
(B) Programs proposed to be funded shall satisfy all of the following
requirements:
21
(i) Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be
effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements
of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention,
suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii) Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of
subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate.
(iii) Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully
coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile
justice programs and strategies.
(iv) Adopt goals related to the outcome measures that shall be used to determine
the effectiveness of the local juvenile justice action strategy.
(C) The plan shall also identify the specific objectives of the programs proposed
for funding and specified outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of
the programs and contain an accounting for all program participants, including
those who do not complete the programs. Outcome measures of the programs
proposed to be funded shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(i) The rate of juvenile arrests per 100,000 population.
(ii) The rate of successful completion of probation.
(iii) The rate of successful completion of restitution and court-ordered community
service responsibilities.
(iv) Arrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates of program participants.
(v) Quantification of the annual per capita costs of the program.
(D) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall review plans or
modified plans submitted pursuant to this paragraph within 30 days upon receipt
of submitted or resubmitted plans or modified plans. The board shall approve
only those plans or modified plans that fulfill the requirements of this paragraph,
and shall advise a submitting county or city and county immediately upon the
approval of its plan or modified plan. The board shall offer, and provide, if
requested, technical assistance to any county or city and county that submits a
plan or modified plan not in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
The SLESA shall only allocate funding pursuant to this paragraph upon
notification from the board that a plan or modified plan has been approved.
(E) To assess the effectiveness of programs funded pursuant to this paragraph
using the program outcome criteria specified in subparagraph (C), the following
periodic reports shall be submitted:
(i) Each county or city and county shall report, beginning October 15, 2002, and
annually each October 15 thereafter, to the county board of supervisors and the
22
Board of State and Community Corrections, in a format specified by the board,
on the programs funded pursuant to this chapter and program outcomes as
specified in subparagraph (C).
(ii) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local reports
and, by March 15, 2003, and annually thereafter, make a report to the Governor
and the Legislature on program expenditures within each county and city and
county from the appropriation for the purposes of this paragraph, on the
outcomes as specified in subparagraph (C) of the programs funded pursuant to
this paragraph and the statewide effectiveness of the comprehensive
multiagency juvenile justice plans.
(c) Subject to subdivision (d), for each fiscal year in which the county, each city,
the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services
District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina
Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and
Community Services District receive moneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b), the county, each city, and each district specified in this
subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following
procedures:
(1) In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate
existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement
services, other than those services specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subdivision (b), in the unincorporated areas of the county, in response to written
requests submitted to the board by the county sheriff and the district attorney.
Any request submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall specify the frontline law
enforcement needs of the requesting entity, and those personnel, equipment,
and programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
(2) In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated
moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with
written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief
administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that
city.
(3) In the case of the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of
San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs
Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community
Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and
Community Services District within Contra Costa County, the legislative body of
that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively
to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests
submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides
police services for that special district.
23
(d) For each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or the Broadmoor Police
Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community
Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern
County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County,
or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within
Contra Costa County receives any moneys pursuant to this chapter, in no event
shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter
any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of
moneys allocated to the county or city pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision
(b).
(e) For the 2011–12 fiscal year, the Controller shall allocate 23.54 percent of the
amount deposited in the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in the Local
Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of
subdivision (b), and shall allocate 23.54 percent for purposes of paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b).
(f) Commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation
described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate
23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law
Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the
purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent
to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, shall allocate
23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b).
(g) Commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation
described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate
23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law
Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the
purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent
to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, shall allocate
23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b). The Controller shall allocate funds in monthly installments to local
jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually
calculated by the Director of Finance.
(h) Funds received pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be expended or encumbered
in accordance with this chapter no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year.
A local agency that has not met the requirement of this subdivision shall remit
unspent SLESA moneys received after April 1, 2009, to the Controller for deposit
in the Local Safety and Protection Account, after April 1, 2012, to the Local Law
Enforcement Services Account, and after July 1, 2012, to the County Enhancing
Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. This subdivision shall become
inoperative on July 1, 2015.
24
(i) In the 2010–11 fiscal year, if the fourth quarter revenue derived from fees
imposed by subdivision (a) of Section 10752.2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code that are deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety
and Protection Account, and continuously appropriated to the Controller for
allocation pursuant to this section, are insufficient to provide a minimum grant of
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction,
the county auditor shall allocate the revenue proportionately, based on the
allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The county auditor shall
proportionately allocate, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b), all revenues received after the distribution of the fourth quarter
allocation attributable to these fees for which payment was due prior to July 1,
2011, until all minimum allocations are fulfilled, at which point all remaining
revenue shall be distributed proportionately among the other jurisdictions.
(j) The county auditor shall redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1,
2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities
Subaccount pursuant to subdivision (h), to the local agency that remitted the
unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 26, Sec. 4. Effective June 24, 2015.
25
APPENDIX B: Statewide Expenditures and Budgeted Funds6
(See page 6 of the report)
JJCPA Interest Non-JJCPA Total JJCPA Budgeted
County Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
Alameda $3,132,906 $10,704 $0 $3,143,610 $4,368,690
Amador $114,149 $0 $29,408 $143,557 $100,985
Butte $615,233 $0 $8,476 $623,709 $632,117
Calaveras $127,043 $0 $0 $127,043 $127,244
Colusa $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Contra Costa $3,345,421 $0 $0 $3,345,421 $3,559,967
Del Norte $57,145 $0 $0 $57,145 $80,000
El Dorado $551,958 $614 $278,126 $830,698 $591,379
Fresno $2,587,726 $0 $0 $2,587,726 $3,251,500
Glenn $69,123 $0 $0 $69,123 $70,468
Humboldt $456,260 $0 $1,176,149 $1,632,409 $219,152
Imperial $537,850 $0 $0 $537,850 $537,850
Inyo $53,067 $0 $0 $53,067 $53,067
Kern $2,602,307 $0 $30,746 $2,633,053 $2,546,986
Kings $351,688 $1,428 $0 $353,116 $429,454
Lake $180,732 $0 $0 $180,732 $168,216
Lassen $98,390 $0 $110,334 $208,724 $98,470
Los Angeles $27,616,832 $0 $0 $27,616,832 $30,995,089
Madera $443,604 $0 $0 $443,604 $432,992
Marin $716,531 $0 $0 $716,531 $716,531
Mariposa $38,235 $106 $0 $38,341 $50,480
Mendocino $277,266 $534 $0 $277,800 $376,633
Merced $687,054 $2,189 $277,482 $966,725 $740,427
Modoc $27,118 $0 $0 $27,118 $27,118
Mono $37,885 $0 $0 $37,885 $37,885
Monterey $1,207,459 $0 $1,584,340 $2,791,799 $1,207,459
Napa $368,458 $0 $0 $368,458 $439,891
Nevada $259,293 $2,769 $0 $262,062 $263,257
Orange $8,628,582 $0 $1,786,752 $10,415,334 $8,628,580
Placer $921,254 $0 $0 $921,254 $1,040,000
Plumas $51,957 $0 $10,395 $62,352 $57,028
Riverside $6,184,795 $0 $0 $6,184,795 $7,342,366
Sacramento $7,991,240 $0 $39,957 $8,031,197 $7,274,586
San Benito $190,145 $0 $0 $190,145 $162,575
San Bernardino $5,691,862 $16,381 $0 $5,708,243 $6,148,272
San Diego $8,863,247 $0 $6,427,957 $15,291,204 $8,229,320
San Francisco $2,327,938 $2,286 $802,864 $3,133,088 $2,370,417
San Joaquin $1,900,655 $0 $0 $1,900,655 $2,184,503
San Luis Obispo $751,800 $0 $16,224 $768,024 $771,681
San Mateo $2,128,532 $0 $538,907 $2,667,439 $2,089,455
Santa Barbara $1,154,431 $3,761 $254,504 $1,412,696 $1,354,091
Santa Clara $5,501,688 $0 $0 $5,501,688 $6,035,513
Santa Cruz $730,038 $0 $258,053 $988,091 $728,020
Shasta $571,159 $0 $55,298 $626,457 $624,304
Siskiyou $116,313 $0 $0 $116,313 $186,026
Solano $2,271,886 $0 $0 $2,271,886 $2,017,387
Sonoma $1,163,322 $4,492 $77,539 $1,245,353 $1,666,845
Stanislaus $1,267,870 $0 $89,000 $1,356,870 $1,710,300
Sutter $289,384 $0 $0 $289,384 $427,952
Tehama $204,409 $0 $0 $204,409 $214,932
Trinity $40,176 $0 $0 $40,176 $39,451
Tulare $1,234,104 $7,503 $0 $1,241,607 $1,585,204
Tuolumne $155,514 $0 $69,000 $224,514 $155,514
Ventura $2,810,728 $0 $0 $2,810,728 $2,588,443
Yolo $553,507 $0 $0 $553,507 $594,624
Yuba $220,657 $0 $0 $220,657 $196,859
TOTALS $110,527,926 $52,767 $13,921,511 $124,502,204 $118,597,555
APPENDIX C: Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs
6 Alpine and Sierra counties did not participate.
26
(See page 6 of the report)
Per Capita Costs
Program
County Programs JJCPA Funds All Funds
Participants
Alameda 1 436 $7,185.56 $7,210.11
Amador 1 42 $2,717.83 $3,418.02
Butte 2 454 $1,355.14 $1,373.81
Calaveras 2 30 $4,234.77 $4,234.77
Colusa 1 51 $980.39 $980.39
Contra Costa 3 811 $4,125.06 $4,125.06
Del Norte 1 15 $3,809.67 $3,809.67
El Dorado 1 309 $1,786.27 $2,688.34
Fresno 7 1,120 $2,310.47 $2,310.47
Glenn 1 43 $1,607.51 $1,607.51
Humboldt 2 176 $2,592.39 $9,275.05
Imperial 2 198 $2,716.41 $2,716.41
Inyo 2 480 $110.56 $110.56
Kern 2 727 $3,579.51 $3,621.81
Kings 1 82 $4,288.88 $4,306.29
Lake 1 40 $4,518.30 $4,518.30
Lassen 3 576 $170.82 $362.37
Los Angeles 14 31,483 $877.20 $877.20
Madera 1 121 $3,666.15 $3,666.15
Marin 3 92 $7,788.38 $7,788.38
Mariposa 1 231 $165.52 $165.98
Mendocino 1 15 $18,484.40 $18,520.00
Merced 1 94 $7,309.09 $10,284.31
Modoc 1 4 $6,779.50 $6,779.50
Mono 1 28 $1,353.04 $1,353.04
Monterey 7 5,376 $224.60 $519.31
Napa 3 228 $1,616.04 $1,616.04
Nevada 3 81 $3,201.15 $3,235.33
Orange 8 2,143 $4,026.40 $4,860.17
Placer 3 523 $1,761.48 $1,761.48
Plumas 1 47 $1,105.47 $1,326.64
Riverside 1 1,292 $4,786.99 $4,786.99
Sacramento 4 573 $13,946.32 $14,016.05
San Benito 1 21 $9,054.52 $9,054.52
San Bernardino 4 14,168 $401.74 $402.90
San Diego 5 6,106 $1,451.56 $2,504.29
San Francisco 5 900 $2,586.60 $3,481.21
San Joaquin 2 1,031 $1,843.51 $1,843.51
San Luis Obispo 2 190 $3,956.84 $4,042.23
San Mateo 5 855 $2,489.51 $3,119.81
Santa Barbara 2 472 $2,445.83 $2,993.00
Santa Clara 2 4,105 $1,340.24 $1,340.24
Santa Cruz 2 335 $2,179.22 $2,949.53
Shasta 5 304 $1,878.81 $2,060.71
Siskiyou 1 82 $1,418.45 $1,418.45
Solano 2 144 $15,776.99 $15,776.99
Sonoma 6 619 $1,879.36 $2,011.88
Stanislaus 3 561 $2,260.02 $2,418.66
Sutter 4 76 $3,807.68 $3,807.68
Tehama 1 41 $4,985.59 $4,985.59
Trinity 1 18 $2,232.00 $2,232.00
Tulare 3 4,161 $296.59 $298.39
Tuolumne 1 26 $5,981.31 $8,635.15
Ventura 4 2,047 $1,373.10 $1,373.10
Yolo 1 103 $5,373.85 $5,373.85
Yuba 2 164 $1,345.47 $1,345.47
All Counties 150 84,450 $1,308.80 $1,474.27
27
APPENDIX D: Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 13 Program Years
(See page 10 of the report)
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year)
All Programs
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
Programs in Which Arrest Rate Are Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles
28
detserrA
tnecereP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
detserrA
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Incarceration Rates (Percent Arrest) by Program Year
All Programs
Programs in which Incarceration Rates Are Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
Completion of Probation Rates by Program Year
All Programs
29
detarecracnI
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
noitaborP
etelpmoC
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Completion of Probation Rate is Expected to be Higher for Program
Juveniles
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
Probation Violation Rates by Program Year
All Programs
30
noitaborP
etelpmoC
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
noitaloiV
noitaborP
htiw
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Probation Violation Rate Is Expected to be Lower for Program
Juveniles
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
Completion of Restitution Rates by Program Year
All Programs
31
noitaloiV
noitaborP
htiw
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
noitutitseR
etelpmoC
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Completion of Restitution Rate Is Expected to be Higher for Program
Juveniles
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
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 13/14 14/15
Completion of Community Service Rates by Program Year
All Programs
32
noitutitseR
etelpmoC
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
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 13/14 14/15
ytinummoC
etelpmoC
tnecreP
ecivreS
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Programs Where Community Service Completion Rate Expected to be Higher for
Program Juveniles
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
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 13/14 14/15
33
ytinummoC
etelpmoC
tnecreP
ecivreS
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
APPENDIX E: Change in County Arrest Rates Per 100,000 Juveniles Age 10-17
(See page 11 of the report)
COUNTY 2013 2014 Change Percent Change
Alameda 1,741 1,524 -217 -12.5%
Amador 2,250 996 -1254 -55.7%
Butte 3,580 2,651 -929 -25.9%
Calaveras 3,185 3,386 201 6.3%
Colusa 2,185 1,571 -614 -28.1%
Contra Costa 1,547 1,377 -170 -11.0%
Del Norte 2,043 1,732 -312 -15.2%
El Dorado 2,259 1,979 -280 -12.4%
Fresno 3,053 2,760 -293 -9.6%
Glenn 5,544 4,416 -1128 -20.3%
Humboldt 4,191 3,604 -587 -14.0%
Imperial 1,669 1,474 -195 -11.7%
Inyo 806 1,244 438 54.3%
Kern 2,796 2,729 -66 -2.4%
Kings 7,547 7,371 -176 -2.3%
Lake 3,422 3,964 542 15.8%
Lassen 3,190 3,023 -167 -5.2%
Los Angeles 1,915 1,676 -239 -12.5%
Madera 2,628 2,543 -85 -3.2%
Marin 2,367 2,193 -174 -7.4%
5
Mariposa 702 0 -702 -100.0%
Mendocino 3,530 2,605 -925 -26.2%
Merced 4,721 3,960 -761 -16.1%
Modoc 4,194 1,533 -2661 -63.4%
Mono 805 729 -76 -9.5%
Monterey 3,677 2,875 -802 -21.8%
Napa 2,491 2,135 -356 -14.3%
Nevada 4,430 3,746 -684 -15.4%
Orange 2,078 1,995 -83 -4.0%
Placer 1,805 1,479 -326 -18.0%
Plumas 3,642 4,368 726 19.9%
Riverside 1,552 1,447 -105 -6.8%
Sacramento 1,793 1,535 -258 -14.4%
San Benito 2,520 2,249 -271 -10.8%
San Bernardino 2,380 2,404 25 1.0%
San Diego 2,737 2,485 -252 -9.2%
San Francisco 2,662 2,128 -533 -20.0%
San Joaquin 3,354 3,002 -352 -10.5%
San Luis Obispo 1,751 1,690 -61 -3.5%
San Mateo 2,221 2,092 -129 -5.8%
Santa Barbara 3,121 3,053 -68 -2.2%
Santa Clara 2,883 2,302 -581 -20.2%
Santa Cruz 2,963 2,656 -307 -10.4%
Shasta 5,290 3,999 -1291 -24.4%
Siskiyou 2,113 1,968 -145 -6.9%
Solano 3,306 2,731 -575 -17.4%
Sonoma 2,507 2,700 193 7.7%
Stanislaus 1,918 1,995 77 4.0%
Sutter 4,099 3,366 -733 -17.9%
Tehama 3,151 3,331 181 5.7%
Trinity 2,891 284 -2607 -90.2%
Tulare 3,970 3,577 -393 -9.9%
TAullo JlJuCmPnAe C ounties 23,,307364 22,,133081 --273383 --1204..02%%
Ventura 3,777 3,291 -486 -12.9%
34