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
M 2017
ARCH
Annual Report
Juvenile Justice
Crime Prevention Act
Annual Report to the Legislature
March 2017
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, Adult Parole Operations, CDCR .................................................................................................... Jeffrey Green (A)
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 Garrett
A judge appointed by the Judicial Council of California
Retired Chief of Police, Chula Vista ...................................................................................................... David Bejarano (Ret.)
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
Director, City of Sacramento Office of Public Safety Accountability .......................................................... Francine Tournour
A public member appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation
BSCC Staff
Executive Director ......................................................................................................................................... Kathleen Howard
Communications Director ...................................................................................................................................... Tracie Cone
General Counsel ............................................................................................................................................... Aaron Maguire
Deputy Director, Corrections Planning & Grant Programs........................................................................................ Mary Jolls
Field Representative, Corrections Planning & Grant 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 6-11
Program Expenditures
Juvenile Justice Outcomes
County Highlights 11-16
Kings
Riverside
Santa Cruz
Sonoma
Ventura
Summary 17
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 15 Program Years
E. 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.
In fiscal year 2015-16, $138.5 million in JJCPA funding supported 151 programs in 56
participating counties (Alpine and Sierra counties opt out). Per capita spending by these
counties ranges from $24,735 in Sacramento County to $200 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 lower rates of arrest (24.6 percent) and
incarceration (23.9 percent) compared to youth in a comparable reference group (25.3
percent and 26.5 percent, respectively). They also had fewer probation violations (27.3
percent compared to 29.2 percent for the reference group) and were more likely to
complete probation (30.5 percent compared to 26.5 percent for the reference group).
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.
Pursuant to changes resulting from AB 1998 (Chapter 880, Statutes of 2016), this will be
the last report submitted as a standalone on the JJCPA program. Beginning next year,
counties will submit their JJCPA data in combination and with their Youthful Offender
Block Grant data and the BSCC, in turn, will submit a combined report to the Governor
and Legislature. Although AB 1998 went into effect on January 1, 2017, the data that
were reported by the counties and is summarized here were collected, reported and
analyzed under the prior requirements. Consequently, this report relies on the same
format and data presentation as prior year reports. The report due March 1, 2018 will
reflect the changes included in AB 1998 and described in the next section of this report.
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.
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.
From inception through 2016, the JJCPA program underwent only minimal change.
However, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1468 (Statutes of 2014, Chapter 26), the Juvenile
Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG) was established and charged with the
responsibility for developing recommendations to improve or streamline reporting
requirements for the JJCPA and the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) programs. In
September 2016, the Governor signed AB 1998, which among other things, codified
several recommendations made by the JJDWG. The most significant changes resulting
from this new legislation are described below.
Annual Plans
Annual plans for JJCPA and YOBG will be combined and submitted to the BSCC each
year by May 1. These plans will describe all programs, placements, strategies, services,
and system enhancements that will be supported with JJCPA and/or YOBG funds in the
upcoming fiscal year.
Counties are no longer required to include a proposed budget in their annual plans.
Consistent with YOBG requirements, the JJCPA component of the annual plan no
longer requires Board of Supervisors’ approval.
The BSCC will no longer approve annual plans; however, all annual plans will be posted
on the BSCC website.
Year-end Expenditure & Outcome Reports
Annual year-end reports for JJCPA and YOBG will be combined and will be due to the
BSCC by October 1 of each year.
Annual year-end reports will describe programs, placements, services, strategies and
system enhancements that were funded through either program during the preceding
1Alpine and Sierra Counties have historically chosen not to participate in this program.
2
fiscal year, including identification of any programs that were co-funded by JJCPA and
YOBG. Reports will include line item budget detail.
In addition to expenditure information, annual year-end reports will include countywide
figures for specified juvenile justice data elements available in existing statewide juvenile
justice data systems. Reports will also include a summary or analysis of how grant-
funded programs have or may have contributed to or influenced the countywide data that
is reported. These revised reporting requirements will require counties to report data on
their entire juvenile justice population and to describe how their use of JJCPA and
YOBG funds has, or may have, impacted the trends seen in that data.
The current outcome reporting requirements for both JJCPA and YOBG have been
modified to reflect the above described countywide data reporting.
BSCC Legislative Reports
The BSCC has completed this final individual report to the Legislature, along with the
individual report on the YOBG program. Both were submitted in March 2017.
Beginning March 1, 2018, and continuing each year thereafter, the BSCC will submit
only one legislative report on JJCPA and YOBG. This report will be a summary of the
county year-end expenditure and outcome reports collected during October of each
year.
Program Administration
Government Code Section 30061 requires the BSCC to prepare and submit annual
legislative reports to provide information regarding county expenditure of JJCPA funds and
county outcome data. In preparing this report, the BSCC staff work with local agencies by
providing technical assistance as needed.
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 2015-
16, the total of $107.1 million allocated to counties came from the VLF Fund.
On September 8, 2016, counties received a supplemental allocation reflecting JJCPA
growth funding for the third year in a row. The additional $31.4 million was from revenue
generated during FY 2015-16 and became part of each county’s total allocation for that
3
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.
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 data. At the local level, these evaluation activities enable
stakeholders to assess progress toward desired goals, refine their programs, and target
available resources.
During the 2015-16 FY, the data counties were statutorily required to collect and report
fell into six categories:
Arrest rate;
Incarceration rate;
Probation violation rate;
Probation completion rate;
Restitution completion rate; and
Community service completion rate.
Individual counties reported 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.
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.
JJCPA funds are available to 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
4
action strategy for addressing identified gaps in the continuum of responses to juvenile
crime and delinquency.
In an effort to encourage 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.
5
Statewide Evaluation
Program Expenditures
The counties participating in the JJCPA program expended $111,785,461 in FY 2015-16.
Counties also reported spending $79,692 in interest earned on JJCPA funds and
$14,151,335 in non-JJCPA funds to support program activities. This brings the total
expenditures on JJCPA programs to $126,016,488. 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 78,012 minors participated
in the 151 JJCPA programs in FY 2015-16, which translates into an average per capita
cost to the state (JJCPA funds) of $1,433. See Appendices B and C for county specific
details on expenditures and per capita costs.
Juvenile Justice Outcomes
As required by law, 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 2015-16 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 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
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.
6
TABLE A
Results for Legislatively-Mandated Juvenile Justice Outcomes
Average
Number of Program Reference
Outcome Measure Programs Juveniles Group
Arrest Rate 103 24.6% 25.3%
Incarceration Rate 105 23.9% 26.5%
Completion of Probation 89 30.5% 26.5%
Probation Violation Rate 76 27.3% 29.2%
Completion of Restitution 45 25.3% 24.5%
Completion of Community Service 52 39.7% 38.2%
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 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 24.6 percent and the average arrest rate
for the reference group juveniles is 25.3 percent -- a difference of 0.7 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 3.9 percent (26.4 percent for program juveniles
and 30.3 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 49 26.4% 30.3%
Incarceration Rate* 44 21.5% 28.7%
Completion of Probation 34 34.3% 27.9%
Probation Violation Rate 29 25.2% 30.4%
Completion of Restitution 16 33.8% 34.4%
Completion of Community Service 20 39.3% 37.0%
*Statistically significant group differences
On balance, results for the six legislatively mandated outcomes are 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 2015-16.
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.
CHART A
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): All Programs
40.0%
35.0%
d
e 30.0%
ts
e 25.0%
rrA
tn
20.0%
e c 15.0%
e
re 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 13/14 14/15 15/16
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
8
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 greater. For these programs, the percent of program juveniles
arrested has averaged approximately 25 percent and the percent of reference group
juveniles arrested has averaged approximately 36 percent.
CHART B
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year): Programs with County
Expectation that Program Group Juveniles Will Achieve Superior Results
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.
Charts C and D show the results for all outcomes when averaged over the 15 program
years for which data are available. As would be expected, for arrest rate, in which the
year-to-year outcome results are highly consistent, the differences in the average rates
achieved for the program juveniles and reference group juveniles are the greatest.
Conversely, 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
detserrA
tnecreP
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0 1 /0 2 0 2 /0 3 0 3 /0 4
P
0
ro
4
g
/0
ra
5
m
0
G
5 /0
ro u
6
p J
0
u
6
v
/0 7
e n ile
0
s
7 /0 8 0 8 /0 9
R e
0
fe
9 /1
re n
0
c e
1
G
0 /1 1
ro u p
1 1
J u
/1 2
v e n
1
ile
2
s
/1 3 1 3 /1 4 1 4 /1 5 1 5 /1 6
CHART C
OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 15 PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS)
CHART D
OUTCOME RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 15 PROGRAM YEARS (ALL PROGRAMS)
10
P r
P
o
ro
b a
g ra m G
In c a r c e
t io n V io
ro u p J u
A r r e s t R
r a t io n R
la t io n R
v
a
a
a
e n
t e
t e
t e
ile s R e f e re n c e G ro u p J u v e n
2
2 2 . 0
ile s
4 .8 %
3
%
2 6 .3
2 8
3
0
%
.2
0
.9
%
.0
%
%
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Completion of Community 44.7%
Service Rate
40.3%
Completion of Probation 27.8%
Rate
24.0%
Completion of Restitution 29.5%
Rate
27.5%
The JJCPA requires that all counties report on the annual countywide arrest rates per
100,000 juveniles ages 10 to 17. Results for this measure are presented for the most
recent reporting year (2015) 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 15 counties the arrest rate per 100,000
juveniles was lower in 2015 than in 2014. Furthermore, for all 554 counties combined,
the arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles decreased from 2,138 in 2014 to 1,880. This is the
14th year-to-year decline that has occurred in the 15 years that annual reports have been
submitted to the Legislature on the JJCPA program.
4 California Department of Justice’s Juvenile Arrests Report, 2014 Offense by Jurisdiction reported zeros for
Mariposa County.
11
County Descriptions of Highlights
In an effort to showcase some of the work being done by counties with JJCPA funds,
counties were again 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.
Kings County – FAVOR Unit
The Kings County Probation Department’s Facilitating Accountability Victim Offender
Restitution (FAVOR) Unit has been actively promoting change in the community. Our
annual 5 week summer program, Youth Expanding Self-efficacy (Y.E.S.), exposes an
average group of 25-35 youth (ages 6 to 10) to a variety of positive activities, including
presentations by guest speakers from the community that they would not otherwise have
access to. This past year’s guest speakers were from the Kings County Sheriff’s
Department, the Hanford Police Department, Kings County Behavioral Health, Adventist
Health, Champions Recovery Alternative Programs, MGM Fitness and the Kings County
Public Health Department. The presenters focused on delivering messages related to
safety awareness, personal health and personal self-growth. The participants in the
summer program engaged in team building, career development, and creativity through
different art projects for which they and their families were appreciative.
The program met twice a week for three hours each day. Each day the program was
divided into three session models: Arts and Crafts, Team Building, and Career
Development, where the youth rotated into the various sessions throughout the day. The
curriculum for each model was designed to motivate the participants to explore their
creativity, develop self-confidence, expand their knowledge and lastly, to be inspired to
think about their futures. All the youth were gathered together during the interactive guest
speaker presentations where they also received incentives. Throughout the entire Y.E.S.
Program, the youth earned participation tickets that were redeemed for fun prizes on the
last day of the program. Given the success of the program, the families and participants
are eagerly awaiting the 2017 Y.E.S. Program.
Riverside County – Youth Accountability Teams
Since 2001, JJCPA funds have been utilized for facilitating the Youth Accountability
Teams (YAT), a highly successful community-based diversion program for at-risk youth
in Riverside County. The teams are comprised of representatives from the probation
12
department, the district attorney’s office, sheriff’s department, school districts, community
based organizations and other local law enforcement agencies. Since its inception,
approximately 72% of the YAT participants successfully completed the program and have
not reoffended. The program is a voluntary and collaborative effort to prevent, intervene,
and suppress youth delinquency. Youth receive extensive mentorship and support
services that enhance the likelihood of success at school, home, and in the community.
The YAT officers use an assessment tool for each youth to determine risks and needs,
which then guides targeted interventions for the youth through weekly programming. The
YAT program also involves youth in pro-social activities, community service projects, and
community clean-up projects. During the summer break this year, the YAT program staff
facilitated two week-long Strength Academies. These academies are camp-like settings
where youth receive mentorship and education that targets their various criminogenic
needs. The academies provide athletic competitions, nutritional information and other life
skills. This year’s theme was Reach New Heights: Becoming Your Best Self. Throughout
the week, youth examined their strengths and were encouraged to reach toward their
dreams and overcome obstacles that stood in their way. The schedules were filled with
team building activities, arts and crafts, sports, as well as educational and professional
speakers. Each activity was specifically crafted to target values that strengthened the
youths’ resolve to persevere through difficult times with a positive and successful focus
on their future.
Santa Cruz County – Luna Evening Center Program
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act funds are used for an on-call staff at the Luna
Evening Center (LEC) to assist in supervision, transportation, and daily programming.
Additionally JJCPA partially funds a community based agency to provide job training and
mentorship workshops one day each week and also to supervise youth participating in
park restoration programs throughout the county on Saturdays. This program provides a
service that allows youth to contribute back to their community and gives them a sense
of pride and accomplishment.
The youth that attend the LEC face many obstacles and often fall back on delinquent
behavior because they have no support system at home. The LEC staff are sensitive to
this and are dedicated to helping these youth obtain their goals by giving them the tools
they need to succeed in life.
A recent example was a probation youth who was not responding to his supervision. He
had multiple violations and repeated delinquent behavior, leading to contact with law
enforcement on more than one occasion. Some of the youth’s individual risk factors
included poor behavioral control, poor peer association, antisocial attitudes, and early
involvement with drugs and alcohol. This youth was ordered to attend the LEC and upon
entering was resistant - not following the rules, using inappropriate language and not
getting involved in any type of pro-social or community activities. However, over time, the
youth became responsive and is now fully engaged; participating in LEC programming
and pro-social activities with his peers. This youth is now also engaging in school and has
13
expressed many times that he is focused on completing his probation terms, obtaining
employment, and continuing to attend school and counseling regularly.
Sonoma County – Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
For the past two fiscal years, Sonoma County Probation Office has been delivering
Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) in partnership with the Child
Parent Institute, a local community-based service provider. Thirty-two families have
received services through this program. Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy is
a treatment model designed to assist adolescents and their families in overcoming the
negative effects of a traumatic experience. For youth, TF-CBT is designed to address
feelings of shame, distorted beliefs about self and others, acting out behavior problems,
and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and related symptoms. There is also a
parental component which addresses inappropriate parenting practices and parental
trauma-related emotional distress. Sessions are weekly for 12 to 18 weeks. This program
has been given the highest rating, well supported by research evidence, by the California
Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. Outcomes which showed measurable
improvement in studies of this program included reduction of PTSD symptoms and
externalizing behaviors in youth and increased parenting skills for parents.
As part of this program, Child Parent Institute also offers parent education and resource
assistance when necessary as determined by the therapist. While the TF-CBT model
includes a psycho-educational component for the parent, all Child Parent Institute
therapists are trained in the Positive Parenting Programs (an evidence-based Parenting
program) and can determine if the family could benefit from a more focused offering of
parent education in addition to continued trauma therapy. They would then be referred to
a parent educator for those services. Likewise, if program staff feel the family could benefit
from some resources assistance, they provide a case manager who can connect the
family to resources in the community (job-related, medical, etc.) as well as helping them
to develop skills and strategies to improve their situation (e.g. how to set up a household
budget). Research has shown that this type of support can reduce the incidence of child
maltreatment.
Child Parent Institute participates in Sonoma County Probation’s quality assurance
process. The process is collaborative; the providers select what quality assurances
activities they will carry out and document, Probation reviews and approves their
measures and then, on an annual basis, reviews documentation to assure that quality
assurance activities are being carried out as planned. If activities are not being carried
out as planned, Probation provides support and technical assistance in order to improve
quality assurance processes. Child Parent Institute also reports outcomes to the
Probation Department on an annual basis. In fiscal year 2015-2016, they reported that
14
88% of clients showed improvements on any clinically-targeted domain and 50% of those
exhibiting trauma symptoms showed improvement in the clinically targeted domain within
the first six months of treatment.
Ventura County – Evening Reporting Center
“Every child you encounter is a divine appointment.” Wes Stafford
Ventura County Probation Agency recognizes our role and commitment to the youth we
serve. We know that we have the opportunity and responsibility to make a positive
difference in each youth’s life that we encounter. In 2012, the Juvenile Justice
Coordinating Council of Ventura County approved the development of an Evening
Reporting Center (ERC) program. The ERC is designed to provide an alternative to
detention, to assist with the reduction of minority youth admissions into the Juvenile
Facility (JF), and to add a needed dimension to carry out the goals of Evidence Based
Practices (EBP). On April 9, 2013, funds were allocated from the Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Act (JJCPA) to contract for the ERC program with the Boys and Girls Club of
Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme (BGCOP).
The ERC is a Youth Empowerment Program that is located within BGCOP that strives to
build positive personal development and professional skills among participants (i.e.
positive self-identify, hope about one’s future, reduce recidivism, educational, vocational,
social, emotional, and cultural competencies, community and civic involvement, the
knowledge, skills, strategies and attitudes necessary to have a positive foundation for
change, and values enabling one to develop positive relationships with others). The ERC
focuses on after school hours and holidays. It begins every weekday at 3:00 p.m. and
ends at 8:00 p.m. Youth are offered transportation and dinner. Initially, the ERC was to
serve youth in programs funded by the JJCPA. Since its inception in 2013, the ERC has
served 118 youth. Of the 118 youth referred, there were 96 males and 22 females. Within
this demographic there were 108 Latinos, 8 Caucasians, and 2 African Americans. It is
worth noting the promising performance results for fiscal year 2015-16. Of the 50 youth
who participated in the program, 51% graduated and 41 (79%) of the graduates have
continued to participate in the program. The ERC has been successful at providing an
alternative to detention, assisting with the reduction of minority youth admissions into the
JF and carrying out the goals of EBP.
The ERC was nationally recognized at the Growing up Locked down (G.U.L.D)
Conference held in Oxnard, California in October 2016, by the Justice League of NYC.
In February 2016, The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) evaluated
the ERC program and noted that the ERC “follows some elements of positive youth
development theory, which takes a strength-based, resilience-oriented perspective on
adolescence.” NCCD felt the ERC encouraged pro-social behavior in youth and helped
to connect them with positive adults. Based on its success, they recommended expanding
this program and on April 13, 2016, the Ventura County Juvenile Justice Coordinating
Council decided that the ERC should be a standalone program, available to any probation
youth, instead of a service available only to JJCPA participants. To further support that,
15
funding was provided for two additional ERC programs. The other two ERC’s will be
located on the east and the west end of the county due to the number of youth on
probation and the lack of services available to at risk youth in those areas. Expanding this
program to two additional sites means more youth will be provided community based
resources and have access to a “safe zone.”
16
Summary
During FY 2015-16, 56 counties reported spending $111,785,461 in JJCPA funds to
support 151 programs serving 78,012 juveniles, with a per capita cost of $1,433 (JJCPA
funds only).
Youth participating in JJCPA programs during FY 2015-16 had better outcomes than
youth in comparison groups, including lower arrest and incarceration rates and higher
rates of completion of probation. Moreover, program data for the past 15 years show that
youth who participate in JJCPA programs have 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.”
17
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
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
18
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 a 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. The plan shall be reviewed and
updated annually by the council. The plan or updated plan may, at the discretion
of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors.
The plan or updated plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and
Community Corrections by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board
that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile
justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for
submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to
be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(A) The multiagency juvenile justice plan 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) A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are
proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph.
(B) Programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded
under this chapter shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(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.
19
(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.
(C) To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system
enhancements funded pursuant to this paragraph, each county or city and county
shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of
supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the
programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter.
The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report
to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to
the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by
subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report
shall include all of the following:
(i) An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system
enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately
preceding fiscal year.
(ii) An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year
for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this
chapter.
(iii) A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system
enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using
funds provided under this chapter and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds
provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv) Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide
juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and
Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions
filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and
probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a
summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the
programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter
have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends
identified in the report.
(D) The board shall, within 45 days of having received the county’s report, post
on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or
system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the
county under this chapter.
(E) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local
reports and, by March 1 of each year following their submission, make a report to
the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and
system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city
and county from the appropriation made for the purposes of this paragraph. The
annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the
countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties
indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by
funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or
influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to
20
the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by
subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the
Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be submitted
pursuant to Section 9795, and shall be posted for access by the public on the
Internet Web site of the board.
(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.
(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
21
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.
(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. 2016, Ch. 880, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2017.)
22
APPENDIX B: Statewide Expenditures and Budgeted Funds5
(See page 6 of the report)
JJCPA Interest Non-JJCPA
County Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Total Expenditures JJCPA Budgeted
Alameda $4,013,015 $20,157 $0 $4,033,172 $5,000,000
Amador $128,341 $0 $1,003 $129,344 $100,453
Butte $616,812 $0 $0 $616,812 $658,926
Calaveras $137,264 $0 $0 $137,264 $127,243
Colusa $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Contra Costa $3,515,784 $0 $0 $3,515,784 $3,660,209
Del Norte $55,869 $0 $0 $55,869 $79,760
El Dorado $593,433 $973 $404,694 $999,100 $621,236
Fresno $2,916,578 $0 $0 $2,916,578 $3,405,950
Glenn $90,526 $0 $0 $90,526 $79,380
Humboldt $463,586 $0 $1,195,328 $1,658,914 $376,129
Imperial $500,052 $0 $0 $500,052 $500,052
Inyo $53,067 $0 $0 $53,067 $53,067
Kern $2,438,913 $0 $334,906 $2,773,819 $2,604,800
Kings $369,693 $1,912 $0 $371,605 $442,966
Lake $178,219 $0 $0 $178,219 $168,216
Lassen $100,470 $0 $110,000 $210,470 $95,616
Los Angeles $26,649,587 $0 $0 $26,649,587 $34,079,650
Madera $527,445 $0 $0 $527,445 $580,512
Marin $716,531 $0 $0 $716,531 $716,531
Mariposa $46,753 $151 $0 $46,904 $54,750
Mendocino $291,285 $1,175 $0 $292,460 $246,414
Merced $559,249 $2,304 $406,869 $968,422 $815,401
Modoc $27,118 $0 $0 $27,118 $27,118
Mono $32,485 $0 $0 $32,485 $37,885
Monterey $1,207,459 $0 $1,576,340 $2,783,799 $1,194,043
Napa $344,106 $0 $0 $344,106 $412,595
Nevada $422,444 $4,360 $0 $426,804 $379,178
Orange $10,382,737 $0 $358,259 $10,740,996 $11,593,480
Placer $987,982 $0 $0 $987,982 $1,080,103
Plumas $47,825 $0 $19,976 $67,801 $57,028
Riverside $7,001,706 $0 $0 $7,001,706 $8,109,209
Sacramento $4,539,944 $0 $134,957 $4,674,901 $4,539,944
San Benito $151,586 $0 $0 $151,586 $176,172
San Bernardino $5,613,214 $15,791 $0 $5,629,005 $6,503,322
San Diego $9,305,923 $0 $6,805,471 $16,111,394 $9,389,188
San Francisco $2,174,927 $4,601 $1,564,070 $3,743,598 $2,482,041
San Joaquin $2,084,499 $0 $0 $2,084,499 $2,423,193
San Luis Obispo $745,161 $1,041 $73,384 $819,586 $745,161
San Mateo $2,683,141 $0 $0 $2,683,141 $2,642,141
Santa Barbara $1,317,311 $6,025 $237,648 $1,560,984 $1,414,925
Santa Clara $5,546,270 $0 $0 $5,546,270 $5,516,339
Santa Cruz $787,037 $0 $246,883 $1,033,920 $880,970
Shasta $574,225 $0 $40,530 $614,755 $583,851
Siskiyou $107,225 $0 $0 $107,225 $118,209
Solano $2,758,623 $0 $0 $2,758,623 $2,170,899
Sonoma $1,298,111 $10,101 $20,461 $1,328,673 $1,676,472
Stanislaus $1,641,935 $0 $0 $1,641,935 $1,684,826
Sutter $287,369 $0 $136,366 $423,735 $401,578
Tehama $216,599 $0 $0 $216,599 $229,870
Trinity $39,451 $620 $0 $40,071 $39,451
Tulare $1,075,780 $10,481 $0 $1,086,261 $2,014,483
Tuolumne $154,580 $0 $30,000 $184,580 $155,514
Ventura $2,438,845 $0 $0 $2,438,845 $2,869,735
Yolo $555,842 $0 $454,190 $1,010,032 $599,339
Yuba $221,529 $0 $0 $221,529 $234,212
Totals $111,785,461 $79,692 $14,151,335 $126,016,488 $126,899,735
5 Alpine and Sierra counties did not report.
23
APPENDIX C: Statewide Summary of Per Capita Program Costs
(See page 6 of the report)
24
APPENDIX D: Results for Mandated Outcomes for Each of 15 Program Years
(See page 9 of the report)
Average Arrest Rates by Program Year (Fiscal Year)
All Programs
Programs in Which Arrest Rate Are Expected to be Lower for Program Juveniles
25
detserrA
tnecereP
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0 1 /0 2 0 2 /0 3 0 3 /0 4
P
0
ro
4
g
/0
ra
5
m
0
G
5 /0
ro u
6
p J
0
u
6
v
/0 7
e n ile
0
s
7 /0 8 0 8 /0 9
R e
0
fe
9 /1
re n
0
c e
1
G
0 /1 1
ro u p
1 1
J u
/1
v e
2
n
1 2
ile s
/1 3 1 3 /1 4 1 4 /1 5 1 5 /1 6
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
d e 30.0%
ts
e rrA 25.0%
tn 20.0%
e
c
re 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 13/14 14/15 15/16
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
26
detarecracnI
tnecreP
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0 1 /0 2 0 2 /0 3 0 3 /0 4
P
0
ro
4
g
/0 5
ra m
0
G
5 /0
ro u
6
p J
0
u
6
v
/0
e
7
n ile
0
s
7 /0 8 0 8 /0 9
R e
0
fe
9 /1
re n
0
c e
1
G
0 /1 1
ro u p J
1
u
1 /1
v e
2
n
1 2
ile s
/1 3 1 3 /1 4 1 4 /1 5 1 5 /1 6
40.0%
35.0%
d 30.0%
e
ta
re 25.0%
c
ra
c 20.0%
n
I
tn
15.0%
e
c
re
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 13/14 14/15 15/16
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
Completion of Probation Rates by Program Year
All Programs
Programs Where Completion of Probation Rate is Expected to be Higher for Program
Juveniles
27
noitaborP
etelpmoC
tnecreP
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
3 5 .0
3 0 .0
2 5 .0
2 0 .0
1 5 .0
1 0 .0
5 .0
0 .0
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
.0 %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0 1
0 1 /0
/0 2
2
0 2
0 2 /0
/0 3
3
0 3
0 3 /0
P
/0 4
4
ro
0
0 4 /0 5 0 5
g ra m G ro u
4 /0 5 0 5 /0
/0 6
p J u
6 0
0 6 /0 7
v e n ile
6 /0 7
s
0
0 7
7 /0
/0
8
8
0
0
8
8 /0 9
R e fe
/0 9 0
0 9 /1
re n c
9 /1 0
0
e G
1
1 0 /1 1
ro u p J
0 /1 1
u
1
1 1 /1
v e n
1 /1 2
2 1
ile s
1 2
2 /1
/1 3
3
1
1
3
3 /1
/1 4
4 1 4 /1 5
1 4 /1 5
1 5 /1 6
1 5 /1 6
n
o
ita
b
o
r
P
e
te
lp
m
o
C
tn
e
c
r
e
P
P ro g ra m G ro u p J u v e n ile s R e fe re n c e G ro u p J u v e n ile s
Probation Violation Rates by Program Year
All Programs
Programs Where Probation Violation Rate Is Expected to be Lower for Program
Juveniles
28
noitaloiV
noitaborP
htiw
tnecreP
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0 .0 %
5 .0 %
0 .0 %
5 .0 %
0 .0 %
5 .0 %
0 .0 %
5 .0 %
0 .0 %
4 0 .0 %
3 5 .0 %
3 0 .0 %
2 5 .0 %
2 0 .0 %
1 5 .0 %
1 0 .0 %
5 .0 %
0 .0 %
0 1
0 1
/0
/0
2
2
0 2
0 2
/0
/0
3
3
0
0
3
3
/0
/0
4
4
P
0
ro
0
4
g
4
/0 5
ra m
/0 5
0
G
0
5 /0 6
ro u p
5 /0 6
J
0
u
0
6 /0
v e
6 /0
7
n
7
ile
0 7
s
0 7
/0 8
/0 8
0
0
8
8
/0 9
R
/0 9
e
0
fe
0
9 /1 0
re n c
9 /1 0
e
1 0 /1 1
G ro u p
1 0 /1 1
1 1 /1 2
J u v e n
1 1 /1 2
1 2 /1 3
ile s
1 2 /1 3
1 3 /1
1 3 /1 4
4 1 4 /1
1 4 /1 5
5 1 5 /1
1 5 /1 6
6
n
o
ita
lo
iV
n
o
ita
b o
rP
h
tiw
tn
e
c
re
P
P ro g ra m G ro u p J u v e n ile s R e fe re n c e G ro u p J u v e n ile s
Completion of Restitution Rates by Program Year
All Programs
Programs Where Completion of Restitution Rate Is Expected to be Higher for Program
Juveniles
29
noitutitseR
etelpmoC
tnecreP
4 5 .0
4 0 .0
3 5 .0
3 0 .0
2 5 .0
2 0 .0
1 5 .0
1 0 .0
5 .0
0 .0
4 5 .0 %
4 0 .0 %
3 5 .0 %
3 0 .0 %
2 5 .0 %
2 0 .0 %
1 5 .0 %
1 0 .0 %
5 .0 %
0 .0 %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0
0
1
1 /0
/0 2
2 0
0 2
2 /0
/0 3
3 0 3 /0
0 3 /0 4
4 0 4 /0 5
P ro g ra m
0 4 /0 5
0 5 /0 6
G ro u p
0 5 /0 6
0 6 /0 7
J u v e n ile
0 6 /0 7
0 7 /0 8
s
0 7 /0 8
0
0
8
8
/0 9
R
/0 9
e
0 9 /1 0
fe re n c
0 9 /1 0
e
1
G
1
0 /1 1
ro u p
0 /1 1
J
1
u
1
1
v
1
/1 2
e n ile
/1 2
1 2
s
1 2
/1
/1
3
3
1 3 /1 4
1 3 /1 4
1 4 /1 5
1 4 /1 5
1 5 /1 6
1 5 /1 6
n
o
itu
tits
e
R
e
te
lp
m
o
C
tn
e
c
re
P
P ro g ra m G ro u p J u v e n ile s R e fe re n c e G ro u p J u v e n ile s
Completion of Community Service Rates by Program Year
All Programs
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 15/16
Programs Where Community Service Completion Rate Expected to be Higher for
Program Juveniles
30
ecivreS
ytinummoC
etelpmoC
tnecreP
Program Group Juveniles Reference Group Juveniles
60.0%
e
c
iv
re 50.0%
S
y
tin
u 40.0%
m
m
o
C 30.0%
e
te
lp
m 20.0%
o
C
tn
e 10.0%
c
re
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 13/14 14/15 15/16
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)
31