Board of State and Community Corrections

Y O B OUTHFUL FFENDER LOCK G RANT March 2014 Annual Report BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95811 916.445.5073 PHONE 916.327.3317 FAX bscc.ca.gov Leadership Excellence Support Youthful Offender Block Grant Fourth Annual Report to the Legislature March 2014 Board of State and Community Corrections 600 Bercut Drive Sacramento, CA 95811 http://www.bscc.ca.gov STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Board Members Linda M. Penner, Chair Board of State and Community Corrections Jeffrey A. Beard Adele Arnold Secretary Chief Probation Officer (county under 200,000 pop.) Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation County of Tuolumne Daniel Stone William R. Pounders Director, Division of Adult Parole Operations Judge Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Retired – County of Los Angeles Dean Growdon David L. Maggard, Jr. Sheriff (jail with RC of 200 inmates or less) Chief of Police County of Lassen Irvine Police Department Geoff Dean Scott Budnick Sheriff (jail with RC over 200 inmates) Community provider or rehabilitative treatment County of Ventura or services for adult offenders Anti-Recidivism Coalition Susan Mauriello David Steinhart County Supervisor or Community Provider or advocate with expertise in County Administrative Officer effective programs, polices, and treatment of at-risk County of Santa Cruz youth and juvenile offenders Commonweal Michelle Brown Mimi H. Silbert Chief Probation Officer (county over 200,000 pop.) Public Member County of Fresno Delancey Street Foundation Staff Kathleen T. Howard, Executive Director Tracie L. Cone, Communications Director Robert J. Takeshta, Deputy Director William J. Crout, Deputy Director Administration & Research Division Corrections Planning & Programs Division Gary Wion, Deputy Director Evonne Garner, Deputy Director Facilities Standards and Operations Division Standards & Training for Corrections Division Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 1 2. Background 3 History of the Youthful Offender Block Grant Program 3 YOBG Reporting Requirements 4 Executive Steering Committee 4 Key Provisions of YOBG 5 California State Auditor Review 6 3. Expenditures Reported for FY 2012 - 13 7 Summary of Actual Expenditure Data 7 YOBG Expenditures by Fiscal Year Allocation 13 Leveraging of YOBG Funds 13 Planned Versus Actual YOBG Expenditures 14 4. Performance Outcome Process and Results 17 Choosing and Selecting the Target Sample 17 Assembling the Final Sample 17 Characteristics of Final Sample 18 Data Collection Instrument 19 Data Verification 19 Results 19 Comparison of Current Year Findings with Prior Year Findings 27 Summary 32 Tables Table 1 – YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item Table 2 – Three-Year Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item Table 3 – YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category Type Table 4 – Three-Year Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Category Type Table 5 – Summary of YOBG Expenditures Table 6 – Three-Year Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category and Fiscal Year Table 7 – YOBG Expenditures by Allocation Year Table 8 – Expenditures from YOBG, JJCPA and Other Funding Sources Table 9 – Fiscal Year Comparisons of All Funding Sources Table 10 – Planned Versus Actual YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item Table 11 – Planned Versus Actual YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category Type Table 12 – Cases Excluded from Initial Study Sample Table 13 – Demographic Characteristics of Study Population and Final Sample Table 14 – Mean Number of Assessments, Placements and Direct Services Table 15 – Assessments, Placements and Direct Services Rates Table 16 – Frequency of YOBG Funding of Provided Assessments, Placements and Direct Services Table 17 – Baseline Characteristics of Study Sample Table 18 – Performance Outcomes During One-Year Follow-Up Period Table 19 – Performance Outcomes Relationships with Baseline Characteristics Table 20 – Performance Outcomes and Number of Direct Services Table 21 – Mean Number of Assessments, Placements and Direct Services in the Two Most Recent Reporting Years Table 22 – Percentage of YOBG Youth and Other Youth Receiving Assessments, Placements and Services in Each of the Last Three Reporting Years Table 23 – Baseline Characteristics of YOBG Youth and Other Youth by Reporting Year Table 24 – Outcomes for YOBG Youth and Other Youth by Reporting Year Appendices A – Expenditures and Per Capita Costs by Expenditure Category (All Funding Sources) B – Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item C – Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Category Type D – Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category and Fiscal Year E – Allocation Year Source of YOBG Expenditures F – Summary of Per Capita Costs G – Planned and Actual Expenditures by County H – Planned and Actual Expenditures by Program Type I – County YOBG Allocation Amounts and County Representation in Performance Outcome Study Group 1 Executive Summary The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG), sometimes known as “juvenile realignment,” was enacted in 2007 by legislation that reassigned from state to local control the non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual offenders within California’s juvenile justice system. The program had three primary goals: to reduce the number of offenders in Division of Juvenile Justice facilities, to reduce state costs for incarcerating lower level offenders, and to keep lower level offenders closer to home and support systems. In those ways YOBG has been successful. From 2007-08 to 2012-13, the number of offenders in DJJ facilities declined to 587 from 2,439. Similarly, the DJJ parole population dropped to 0 from 2,742 by the end of 2012-13, and the parole budget was eliminated. Consistent with the population reductions, DJJ’s Institutions budget decreased to $164 million from $477 million. In recognition of the increased county responsibilities for supervising and rehabilitating youthful offenders subject to SB 81, the State provides annual funding through the YOBG program. The amount allocated to each county is based on a statutorily defined formula that gives equal weight to a county’s juvenile population and the number of juvenile felony dispositions. In FY 2012-13 statewide YOBG funding was $93.4 million to serve 41,392 young offenders. To receive YOBG funding, counties submit annual funding applications and annual reports of expenditures and performance outcomes to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). In this report the BSCC has synthesized the data collected from county-submitted expenditure and performance outcome reports. Given that 58 counties have approached juvenile realignment in 58 different ways it is not possible to draw inferences about cause and effect relationships between services and outcomes. That presents a problem in reporting outcomes. Funding legislation allows counties to spend their allocations as needed. It is possible for counties to make an argument for funding nearly anything that is part of their juvenile justice programs, a notion supported by anti-supplantation language in the statute. Some counties have used YOBG funds to offset cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Some use it for infrastructure or to infill staffing needs, while others apply it to programs. Because counties can decide how to best spend YOBG funding, not all provide services. Another factor limiting usefulness of the reporting data is that only 5 percent of youthful offender cases statewide are analyzed by counties for this report. While juvenile crime rates continue to decline, the data do not paint a clear picture of the relationship between YOBG funding and outcomes for youth – especially their continued involvement in the criminal justice system. In two of the last four years, a 1 higher percentage of YOBG Youth had new felony adjudications in juvenile court compared to Other Youth in the data sample used for this report. Also during two of the last four years, a higher percentage of YOBG Youth had DJJ commitments. One factor might be that higher-risk youth are singled out for services. We recognize this report has not given policymakers pertinent data regarding this population of offenders and leaves many questions unanswered. Given BSCC’s expanded role in realignment, the time is right to reconsider the data collection, analysis, and reporting processes for YOBG. The BSCC intends to work with stakeholders in the coming months to begin that important task. 2 2 Background History of the Youthful Offender Block Grant Program The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Program was established in 2007 with the enactment of SB 81, and amended in 2009 by SBX4 13. The YOBG program realigned a segment of California’s juvenile justice population from state to county control. Under this legislation, counties are no longer permitted to send certain lower level offenders to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Youth who are no longer eligible for DJJ commitment are those who commit an offense that is not listed in Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 707(b) and is not a sex offense as set forth in Penal Code Section 290.008(c). YOBG supports the concept that public safety is enhanced by keeping juvenile offenders in the proximity of their families and communities. In recognition of the increased county responsibility for supervising and rehabilitating youthful offenders subject to SB 81, the State provides annual funding through the YOBG program. The amount of YOBG funds allocated to each county is based on a statutorily defined formula that gives equal weight to a county’s juvenile population and the number of juvenile felony dispositions. In FY 2012-13, statewide YOBG funding was $93.4 million1. Per the statute, “allocations from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund shall be used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders subject [to the provisions of SB 81].” Based on this provision, allowable uses of YOBG funds are very broad. The proposed uses of YOBG funds vary significantly, reflecting the broad differences in California’s counties and highlighting local priorities. To guide counties in appropriate use of YOBG funds, the Legislature identified several key components counties could employ to positively and effectively impact the lives of juveniles who remain under their supervision per SB 81. Those key components include: Adequate risk and needs assessments; The ability to utilize a multitude of graduated sanctions from treatment to intensive supervision and detention; Re-entry and aftercare programs; Agency capacity building; and The formation or expansion of regional networks. 1 $93.4 million is the amount that was allocated for the 2012-13 fiscal year less growth funding. On October 11, 2013, counties received an additional $11 million from the Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account that augmented the 2012-13 allocations. This is the first time growth funds have been allocated. County expenditure of these funds will be included in next year’s annual report. 3 YOBG Reporting Requirements In 2009, the enactment of SBX4 13 established the following annual reporting cycle: By May 1st of each year, counties must submit annual Funding Applications to the BSCC containing their proposed expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. These Funding Applications are also referred to as Juvenile Justice Development Plans. By October 1st of each year, counties must submit to the BSCC a report of actual expenditures for the previous fiscal year. Also by October 1st of each year, counties must report on performance outcomes for the previous fiscal year. By March 15th of each year, based on the October reports received from counties, the BSCC must prepare and submit to the Legislature a report summarizing county utilization of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including a summary of performance outcomes. The BSCC must also post an annual summary of county reports on its website; however, the due date for this posting is not specified in law. Executive Steering Committee Given the magnitude of change to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Program that resulted from SBX 4 13, the Corrections Standards Authority, now known as the BSCC, convened an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) that would guide the decision making process around implementation of YOBG amendments. The decisions made by the ESC, as well as the resulting reporting forms and processes, remained in place for the FY 2012-13 reporting year. Significant Decisions of the ESC: 1. Because YOBG funds do not have to be used to support programs, but rather can be used to support any number of probation-related activities, the ESC determined it is infeasible to collect YOBG-related outcome data on programs. In turn, it was decided that it would be necessary to use the authority in WIC Section 1961(e) to modify the performance measures specified in the YOBG statute (WIC 1961(c)(2)). 2. In order to capture youth who would have been likely candidates for DJJ commitments prior to SB 81, the ESC decided that counties should report on a random sample of felony adjudicated youth pulled from the Juvenile Court & Probation Statistical System (JCPSS). Given concerns about the reliability of JCPSS data, it was decided its use would be limited to drawing the random sample. No data regarding youth dispositions is obtained through JCPSS, rather this is all provided by counties. 3. The ESC identified the specific outcomes that counties must report and included only a limited number of performance measures focusing on the most frequently requested data. 4 4. The ESC developed a list of assessments, services and outcomes that counties must provide information on relative to each youth in the random sample. 5. The ESC determined the annual statewide random sample must include a minimum of 1,000 youth. 6. To ensure a full year of follow up data when reporting on services provided and outcomes achieved, the ESC determined the sample of youth must be taken from the previous fiscal year. Key Provisions of YOBG YOBG is formula-driven, not competitive: Every county is included in the YOBG program and receives an annual allocation. There is no competitive aspect to YOBG; each county’s allocation is simply based on the formula prescribed in statute that gives equal weight to a county’s juvenile population and its juvenile felony dispositions. The Department of Finance (DOF) calculates each county’s allocation amount annually using their own demographic information for the juvenile population, and DOJ data for juvenile felony dispositions. Each county receives a minimum annual allocation of $117,000, regardless of what the formula yields. Broad flexibility: As provided by statute, “allocations from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund shall be used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders subject [to the provisions of SB 81].” There is no other provision that addresses eligible uses of YOBG funds. Consequently, counties have tremendous flexibility in how they use YOBG funds and counties have used this flexibility to tailor YOBG-funded programs to fit local needs and priorities. No Anti-Supplantation Clause: Consistent with the intent to give counties broad flexibility to manage the realigned population, the YOBG statute does not prohibit supplantation of funds. Consequently, some counties have chosen to use YOBG funds to offset cuts elsewhere in their budgets. DOF and State Controller’s Office roles: As specified in statute, the DOF is responsible for calculating the annual amount of YOBG funding to be allocated to each county. The DOF performs this calculation each year following enactment of the State budget. In turn, the State Controller’s Office (SCO) is responsible for remitting the quarterly allocation amounts to each county according to the calculation provided by the DOF. Consequently, the BSCC, which is responsible for program administration and oversight for this program, is not the fiduciary agent. BSCC Oversight/Monitoring: Although the BSCC has never received funding for administration of the YOBG program, the BSCC staff review each annual application, as well as expenditure and outcome reports, submitted by counties. If the BSCC staff identify an issue or receive an inquiry regarding a county’s use of YOBG funds that cannot be answered through a desk review, on-site monitoring is conducted in response. 5 WIC Section 1962(b) provides that “The [Board of State and Community Corrections] may monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by block grant funds … and may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds.” While this provision seems to provide a degree of accountability, the “grant requirements” for YOBG are so broad it is possible for counties to make an argument for funding almost anything that is part of their juvenile justice programs. The lack of anti-supplantation language in the statute further supports this county flexibility. No Requirement for Evidence-Based Programs (EBP): Despite the current emphasis on evidence-based programs, practices, and strategies, there is no requirement that YOBG funds be used to support EBP. Nevertheless, many counties have opted to utilize YOBG funds for implementation and/or maintenance of EBP. California State Auditor Review Commencing in February 2012, the California State Auditor (CSA) (formerly the Bureau of State Audits) conducted an audit of the YOBG program. As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the CSA looked at a number of issues related to YOBG specifically, and juvenile realignment, in general. CSA issued its report in September 20122 and the BSCC has taken steps to implement some of the recommendations, including providing county-specific expenditure data and clarifying terminology related to county reporting of services. 2 BSCC’s response to the report noted disagreement with some of the recommendations, however others are still under review for implementation. For additional information, the final audit report and the BSCC’s response can be found on the CSA’s website, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2011-129.pdf. 6 3 Expenditures Reported for FY 2012-13 Summary of Actual Expenditure Data On October 1, 2013, the fourth annual YOBG Actual Expenditure Reports were due from counties to the BSCC. All 58 counties complied with this reporting requirement and the expenditure information that follows was extracted from the county reports. While the expenditure information reported below is focused on YOBG expenditures, it should be noted that counties reported total expenditures for those YOBG Expenditure Categories that had multiple funding sources. For example, if a county had an electronic monitoring program funded 70 percent by YOBG, 20 percent by the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and 10 percent by the county general fund; the county reported all of those funding sources to the BSCC in its Actual Expenditure Report. For additional information regarding total funding for all YOBG Expenditure Categories, refer to Appendix A. Counties reported total YOBG expenditures of $88,483,617 in FY 2012-13. Total YOBG expenditures by budget line item are shown in Table 1. As in past years, the bulk of the funds were spent on staff salaries and benefits, accounting for almost 77 percent of total YOBG expenditures. Table 1: YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item Line Item Expenditures Percent Total Salaries & Benefits $67,997,513 76.8% Services & Supplies $8,124,244 9.2% Professional Services $5,724,583 6.5% CBOs $5,314,540 6.0% Fixed Assets & Equipment $232,369 0.3% Administrative Overhead $701,427 0.8% Other Expenditures $388,941 0.4% Total $88,483,617 100.0% YOBG budget line item expenditures for each of the past three fiscal years are reported in Table 2, while budget line item expenditures for the past four fiscal years are reported in Appendix B. Both Table 2 and Appendix B show notable consistency in the manner in which YOBG funds have been spent. 7 Table 2: Three-Year Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item FY2012-13 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 Line Item Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Salaries & Benefits $67,997,513 76.8% $69,501,485 76.5% $76,547,445 78.8% Services & Supplies $8,124,244 9.2% $7,411,467 8.2% $7,053,129 7.3% Professional Services $5,724,583 6.5% $7,268,432 8.0% $7,532,683 7.8% CBOs $5,314,540 6.0% $3,764,557 4.1% $3,051,254 3.1% Fixed Assets $232,369 0.3% $143,632 0.2% $74,125 0.1% Admin. Overhead $701,427 0.8% $2,140,280 2.4% $851,678 0.9% Other Costs $388,941 0.4% $565,433 0.6% $1,992,696 2.1% Total $88,483,617 $90,795,286 $97,103,010 Table 3 shows FY 2012-13 YOBG expenditures by each of three major Expenditure Category Types – Placements, Direct Services, and Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities. As shown in Table 3, over two-thirds of YOBG funds were spent on Placements (67.6 percent), with Direct Services accounting for nearly 30 percent of total YOBG expenditures. While this pattern of YOBG expenditures is generally consistent with prior years, the trend shows a slow decrease in Placement expenditures along with a slow increase in Direct Services expenditures. That trend is seen in Table 4, which shows YOBG expenditures by major Expenditure Category for each of the past three fiscal years, and in Appendix C, which shows the same data for the past four fiscal years. Table 3: YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category Type Expenditure Category Type Amount % Total Placements $59,806,502 67.6% Direct Services $26,486,759 29.9% Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities $2,190,356 2.5% Total $88,483,617 100.0% Table 4: Three-Year Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Category Type Expenditure Category Type Fiscal Year 2012-13 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Fiscal Year 2010-11 Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Placements $59,806,502 67.6% $63,039,975 69.4% $69,104,839 71.2% Direct Services $26,486,759 29.9% $25,632,549 28.2% $25,537,590 26.3% Capacity Bld/Maint $2,190,356 2.5% $2,122,762 2.3% $2,460,581 2.5% Total $88,483,617 100.0% $90,795,286 100.0% $97,103,010 100.0% 8 Table 5 provides a more detailed breakdown of YOBG expenditures within each of the three major Expenditure Types. Specifically, results are reported for each of six types of Placements; 31 types of Direct Services; and seven types of Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities. Total YOBG expenditures and the number of counties spending in the category are shown for each. In addition, the total number of youth served and the YOBG per capita cost are reported for each type of Placement and Direct Service. Among Placements, Camps accounted for the largest expenditure of YOBG funds ($31,539,106) and had the highest YOBG per capita cost ($13,761). The Placement most frequently funded by YOBG was Juvenile Hall (15 counties). Mirroring last year’s data, within Direct Services, Intensive Probation Supervision accounted for the greatest expenditure of YOBG funds ($6,633,044) followed by Other Direct Service - which includes various other services that are not captured by the other Direct Service categories ($4,969,585), Re-Entry or Aftercare Services ($3,665,753), and Day/Evening Treatment Programs ($2,529,646). The Direct Service most frequently funded by YOBG (19 counties) was Risk/Needs Assessment, and the Direct Service category with the highest per capita cost was Family Counseling ($3,535). Among Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities, Staff Salaries/Benefits accounted for by far the greatest expenditure of YOBG funds ($1,188,927), while Staff Training/Professional Development was the activity most frequently funded by YOBG (14 counties). 9 Table 5: Summary of YOBG Expenditures Number of You th Per C apita Expenditure Category Expend itures Counties Served Costs Camp $31,539,106 12 2,292 $13,761 Home on Probation $5,742,128 8 4,898 $1,172 Juvenile Hall $8,552,368 15 5,422 $1,577 Other Placement $6,094,416 3 816 $7,469 Other Secure/Semi-Secure Rehab Facility $7,760,575 4 1,093 $7,100 Ranch $117,909 3 38 $3,103 All Placements $59,806,502 45 14,559 $4,108 After School Services $32,221 2 295 $109 Aggression Replacement Therapy $173,938 4 189 $920 Alcohol and Drug Treatment $579,166 7 693 $836 Community Service $103,518 2 173 $598 Day or Evening Treatment Program $2,529,646 7 1,013 $2,497 Detention Assessment(s) $154,713 2 734 $211 Development of Case Plan $11,342 2 295 $38 Electronic Monitoring $496,650 5 1,177 $422 Family Counseling $1,336,173 2 378 $3,535 Functional Family Therapy $158,287 2 74 $2,139 Gang Intervention $244,309 1 100 $2,443 Gender Specific Programming for Boys $163,966 3 360 $455 Gender Specific Programming for Girls $170,363 3 222 $767 Group Counseling $19,158 3 85 $225 Individual Mental Health Counseling $1,298,880 9 1,419 $915 Intensive Probation Supervision $6,633,044 17 2,745 $2,416 Job Readiness Training $103,507 2 205 $505 Life/Independent Living Skills Training $54,205 4 671 $81 Mental Health Screening $55,193 3 255 $216 Mentoring $216,765 3 93 $2,331 Other Direct Service $4,969,585 16 4,702 $1,057 Parenting Education $6,417 1 0 $0 Pro-Social Skills Training $829,230 7 691 $1,200 Re-Entry or Aftercare Services $3,665,753 9 1,789 $2,049 Recreational Activities $148,147 3 348 $426 Restorative Justice $4,950 1 22 $225 Risk and/or Needs Assessment $1,574,655 19 7,376 $213 Special Education Services $13,250 1 395 $34 Transitional Living Services/Placement $60,476 1 55 $1,100 Tutoring $8,950 1 20 $448 Vocational Training $670,301 3 259 $2,588 All Direct Services $26,486,759 145 26,833 $987 Capital Improvements $132,101 2 N/A N/A Contract Services $62,438 4 N/A N/A Equipment $109,343 5 N/A N/A Other Capacity Building/Maintenance $315,923 7 N/A N/A Other Procurements $14,082 1 N/A N/A Staff Salaries/Benefits $1,188,927 10 N/A N/A Staff Training/Professional Development $367,542 14 N/A N/A All Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities $2,190,356 43 N/A N/A 10 Table 6 shows YOBG expenditures within each of the three major Expenditure Category Types for each of the past three fiscal years. To provide additional detail, Appendix D shows the same data for the past four fiscal years. Both data sets show a relatively consistent pattern in the manner in which YOBG funds have been spent. The most notable variations are with respect to the different types of Placements. As compared with last year, expenditures for Other Placements increased sharply, while expenditures for Home on Probation and, to a lesser extent, Other Secure/Semi-Secure Facility, decreased. It is also interesting to note that YOBG expenditures for Camps, after spiking in FY 2010-11, are back to FY 2009-10 levels (see Appendix D). The total number of youth receiving YOBG-funded Placements during FY 2012-13 (14,559) increased 9.7 percent from FY 2011-12 (13,269). More significantly, Appendix D shows the number of youth receiving YOBG-funded Placements during FY 2012-13 has increased 55 percent since reporting began in FY 2009-10 (from 8,563 to 13,269). During that same time period, total YOBG expenditures for Placements decreased by 5.0 percent (from $62,944,571 in FY 2009-10 to $59,806,502 in FY 2012-13). Table 6 shows that within the major Expenditure Category Type of Direct Services, there were a number of significant changes from FY 2011-12 to 2012-13. Looking at those services that received high levels of funding, YOBG spending increased for Intensive Probation Supervision, Reentry or Aftercare, and Day or Evening Treatment Programs. Funding decreased for Mental Health Counseling and Electronic Monitoring. Though not a large dollar amount, it is interesting to note that YOBG funding for Development of Case Plan decreased by 97 percent (from $412,299 in FY 2011-12 to $11,342 in FY 2012-13). During FY 2012-13, the number of youth receiving YOBG-funded Direct Services increased by more than 1,000 compared to FY 2011-12. YOBG spending for Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities was essentially unchanged from last year and has varied only minimally since FY 2009-10. Overall, compared with last year, total YOBG expenditures decreased by 2.5 percent in FY 2012-13, while the total number of youth served increased by 6.1 percent. 11 Table 6: Three-Year Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category and Fiscal Year YOBG Expenditures Total Youth Served Expenditure Category 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 Camp $31,539,106 $32,721,278 $41,622,302 2,292 1,969 2,599 Juvenile Hall $8,552,368 $8,719,676 $6,772,688 5,422 4,108 2,094 Other Secure/Semi-Secure Facility $7,760,575 $8,312,863 $7,307,863 1,093 1,365 712 Other Placement $6,094,416 $4,149,027 $5,652,315 816 837 2,290 Home on Probation $5,742,128 $9,062,040 $7,686,682 4,898 4,940 5,975 Ranch $117,909 $75,091 $62,989 38 50 52 All Placements $59,806,502 $63,039,975 $69,104,839 14,559 13,269 13,722 Intensive Probation Supervision $6,633,044 $5,574,312 $6,568,079 2,745 2,461 2,128 Other Direct Service $4,969,585 $5,352,780 $2,674,060 4,702 4,086 7,211 Re-Entry or Aftercare Services $3,665,753 $2,733,452 $2,590,080 1,789 2,162 1,658 Day/Evening Treatment Program $2,529,646 $2,193,519 $3,331,564 1,013 879 982 Risk and/or Needs Assessment $1,574,655 $1,525,376 $1,412,358 7,376 4,908 5,614 Family Counseling $1,336,173 $1,202,578 $1,005,196 378 138 326 Mental Health Counseling $1,298,880 $1,503,618 $1,447,942 1,419 1,343 1,010 Pro-Social Skills Training $829,230 $799,880 $122,367 691 889 514 Vocational Training $670,301 $739,844 $917,161 259 261 285 Electronic Monitoring $579,166 $714,481 $141,927 693 1,679 672 Alcohol and Drug Treatment $496,650 $473,464 $823,008 1,177 512 1,124 Gang Intervention $244,309 $200,666 $134,364 100 96 58 Mentoring $216,765 $214,067 $683,347 93 108 362 Aggression Replacement Therapy $173,938 $191,031 $482,280 189 247 430 Programming for Girls $170,363 $234,865 $621,128 222 217 516 Programming for Boys $163,966 $136,745 $56,411 360 265 176 Functional Family Therapy $158,287 $171,002 $144,884 74 65 135 Detention Assessment(s) $154,713 $219,070 $427,724 734 1,788 2,183 Recreational Activities $148,147 $337,547 $193,427 348 422 725 Community Service $103,518 $50,451 $75,276 173 140 40 Job Readiness Training $103,507 $140,458 $830,624 205 237 197 Transitional Living Srvcs./Placement $60,476 $78,055 $0 55 115 0 Mental Health Screening $55,193 $212,012 $6,156 255 588 128 Life/Independent Living Skills Trng. $54,205 $55,345 $93,208 671 491 291 After School Services $32,221 $28,721 $29,128 295 413 470 Group Counseling $19,158 $58,197 $85,062 85 7 257 Special Education Services $13,250 $27,014 $26,987 395 417 484 Development of Case Plan $11,342 $412,299 $551,762 295 642 618 Tutoring $8,950 $5,100 $4,725 20 15 20 Parenting Education $6,417 $0 $245 0 0 N/A Restorative Justice $4,950 $0 $0 22 0 0 Substance Abuse Screening 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 All Direct Services $26,486,758 $25,632,549 $25,537,590 26,833 25,725 28,844 Staff Salaries/Benefits $1,188,927 $1,198,314 $1,167,266 Staff Training/ Development $367,542 $299,056 $491,849 Other Capacity Building/Maintenance $315,923 $242,653 $515,637 Capital Improvements $132,101 $0 $27,700 Equipment $109,343 $114,923 $188,089 Contract Services $62,438 $37,101 $5,000 Other Procurements $14,082 $230,715 $65,040 All Capacity Building Activities $2,190,356 $2,122,762 $2,460,581 Total $88,483,616 $90,795,286 $97,103,010 41,392 38,994 42,566 12 YOBG Expenditures by Fiscal Year Allocation Counties are not required to spend YOBG funds in the year they are allocated. Table 7 shows the YOBG funding sources (fiscal year allocations) that were used by counties during FY 2012-13. As shown in the table, 81.3 percent of all YOBG funds spent in FY 2012-13 were taken from the FY 2012-13 allocation. Another 14.9 percent of the YOBG expenditures were from the FY 2011-12 allocation; followed by much smaller amounts from the allocations for FY’s 2010-11, 2009-10, 2008-09, and 2007-08. The $71,905,918 spent from the FY 2012-13 allocation constitutes 77 percent of the total allocation of $93,351,007 received by the counties in FY 2012-13.3 Allocation year sources of FY 2012-13 YOBG expenditures for each county are presented in Appendix E. Table 7: YOBG Expenditures by Allocation Year Allocation Year Expenditure Amount Percent Total FY 2012-13 $71,905,918 81.3% FY 2011-12 $13,210,369 14.9% FY 2010-11 $1,269,359 1.4% FY 2009-10 $428,967 0.5% FY 2008-09 $1,222,870 1.4% FY 2007-08 $446,133 0.5% All Allocations $88,483,616 100.0% Leveraging of YOBG Funds As mentioned previously, for each Expenditure Category funded by YOBG, counties are required to report expenditures from funds received under the JJCPA program, as well as other funding sources. Table 8 summarizes this information and shows that for all Placements, Direct Services, and Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities that received YOBG funding, this funding accounted for 61.9 percent of all spending reported by the counties for these items, with 1.4 percent of total expenditures coming from JJCPA funds ($1,990,221), and the remaining 36.7 percent of total expenditures coming from other funding sources ($52,542,355). Again this year, as a percentage of total reported expenditures, the contribution of YOBG funds was greatest for Direct Services (84.4 percent) and smallest for Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities (40.9 percent). Overall, these results indicate that for every $1 in YOBG funds spent by counties, an additional $0.62 was spent from other funding sources ($0.02 from JJCPA; $0.59 from other sources).4, 5 3 By comparison, 78.0% of FY 2011-12 expenditures were made from the FY 2011-12 allocation, 80.2%, of FY 2010-11 YOBG expenditures were made from the FY 2010-11 allocation, and 86% of FY 2009-10 YOBG expenditures were made from the FY 2009-10 allocation. 4 This compares to 56 cents in other funds spent for every YOBG dollar in FY 2011-12, 61 cents in other funds spent for every YOBG dollar spent in FY 2010-11, and 40 cents in other funds spent for every YOBG dollar spent in FY 2009-10. 13 Table 8: Expenditures from YOBG, JJCPA and Other Funding Sources YOBG JJCPA Other All Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount Placements $59,806,502 56.3% $1,031,202 1.0% $45,428,697 42.7% $106,266,401 Direct Services $26,486,759 84.4% $917,949 2.9% $3,993,110 12.7% $31,397,818 Cap Bldng/Maint $2,190,356 40.9% $41,070 0.8% $3,120,548 58.3% $5,351,974 Total $88,483,617 61.9% $1,990,221 1.4% $52,542,355 36.7% $143,016,193 Table 9 shows expenditures from all sources (YOBG, JJCPA and Other Funds) in each of the past four fiscal years. Whereas YOBG expenditures accounted for a larger percentage of total expenditures in FY 2009-10 (71.6 percent), YOBG expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures were very similar for the past three fiscal years (61.9 percent in FY 2012-13; 63.9 percent in FY 2011-12; 62.0 percent in FY 2010-11). Over the four years that counties have been reporting expenditure data, both JJCPA and Other Funds expenditures have fluctuated minimally from year to year. Comparing FY 2012-13 to FY 2011-12, JJCPA expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures decreased to 1.4 percent, whereas Other Funds expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures increased to 36.7 percent. Table 9: Fiscal Year Comparisons of All Funding Sources YOBG Funds JJCPA Funds Other Funds All Funds Fiscal Year Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount 2009-10 $86,570,073 71.6% $2,946,940 2.4% $31,409,664 26.0% $120,926,677 2010-11 $97,103,010 62.0% $2,053,926 1.3% $57,526,537 36.7% $156,683,473 2011-12 $90,795,286 63.9% $2,884,901 2.0% $48,437,748 34.1% $142,117,935 2012-13 $88,483,617 61.9% $1,990,221 1.4% $52,542,355 36.7% $143,016,193 Planned Versus Actual YOBG Expenditures In addition to reporting annually to the BSCC on actual YOBG expenditures, in the Spring of each year counties are required to submit a report of planned YOBG expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. Table 10 provides comparative information on planned and actual YOBG activities and expenditures for FY 2012-13. As indicated, nine fewer “Programs” (types of Placements or Direct Services, and Types 5 See Appendix F for breakdowns of per capita costs for each Expenditure Category for all funding sources and for YOBG expenditures only. 14 of Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities) than planned were funded by YOBG, and more than 7,000 fewer youth were served. Total YOBG expenditures were about $11 million less than anticipated, due largely to fewer than expected YOBG dollars being spent on Salaries and Benefits, Professional Services, Administrative Overhead, and Other Expenditures. Conversely, spending on Services and Supplies and Community Based Organizations was somewhat higher than anticipated. Table 10: Planned Versus Actual YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item Planned Actual Difference Programs 242 233 -9 Youth Served 48,966 41,392 -7,574 Salaries & Benefits $74,709,012 $67,997,513 -$6,711,499 Services & Supplies $7,779,634 $8,124,244 $344,610 Professional Services $8,544,099 $5,724,583 -$2,819,516 CBOs $4,838,548 $5,314,540 $475,992 Fixed Assets & Equipment $534,688 $232,369 -$302,319 Administrative Overhead $1,779,552 $701,427 -$1,078,125 Other Expenditures $1,385,272 $388,941 -$996,331 Total Expenditures $99,570,805 $88,483,617 -$11,087,188 Table 11 provides a further breakdown of planned versus actual activities and expenditures within each of the three major Expenditure Category Types. As indicated in this table, actual expenditures were far less than planned within both the Placements and the Direct Services Expenditure Category Types. Interestingly, there was no difference at all in the planned versus actual number of programs delivered under the Placements Category Types; however, there were 20 fewer Direct Services programs actually delivered in comparison to what was planned. Finally, planned and actual YOBG expenditures were very similar for Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities Category Types, despite 11 additional activities being funded as compared to what was planned. As shown in Appendix G, the variance between planned and actual expenditures is primarily attributable to just a small number of counties. During 2012-13, the difference is due largely to changes in Orange and San Bernardino counties. 15 Table 11: Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category Type Program Expenditure Category Type Programs Total Expenditures Planned 45 $64,805,331 Placements Actual 45 $59,806,502 Difference 0 -$4,998,829 Planned 165 $32,362,087 Direct Services Actual 145 $26,486,759 Difference -20 -$5,875,328 Capacity Planned 32 $2,403,387 Bldg./Maint. Actual 43 $2,190,356 Activities Difference 11 -$213,031 While planned versus actual YOBG expenditures at the county level are presented in Appendix G, Appendix H provides information on planned versus actual YOBG expenditures by “Program” Type (i.e., individual Expenditure Category within each of the three major Expenditure Category Types). 16 4 Performance Outcome Process and Results Choosing and Selecting the Target Sample BSCC staff, based on established direction from the Executive Steering Committee, worked with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to extract a random sample of 1,200 juveniles with sustained felony offenses between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 from its Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS). In addition, DOJ provided a random sample of alternate cases for each county based on the number of sampled cases from each county that were subsequently excluded last year. For both the main sample and the alternate sample, juveniles with sustained felonies were selected based on the presumption that these youth reasonably approximate the types of juveniles who would have been likely candidates for DJJ commitment prior to SB 81. The specific time period was selected so that services and outcomes data could be collected for the one-year period following the disposition date for the sustained felony for each juvenile. The same general methodology has been used each of the past three years. The number of cases sampled from each county was based on the percent of total YOBG funds received by each county, with a minimum of one case selected from each county. Within counties, sampling was done randomly within each gender group. Alpine, Mono, Modoc, and Sierra counties did not have any felony adjudicated youth during FY 2011-12 and therefore did not report any youth for this reporting cycle. Using these procedures, the total number of cases for which data was sought was 1,253. Assembling the Final Sample A total of 93 cases were excluded to arrive at the final sample of 1,160 cases. The reasons for exclusion are shown in Table 12. As reported in the table, the most frequent reasons for exclusion were early termination of jurisdiction (judiciary termination of juvenile probation either upon or shortly after disposition of the adjudicated offense), a non-felony adjudicated offense (an offense ultimately adjudicated as a misdemeanor), transfer out of the county, transfer to DJJ upon initial disposition for the adjudicated offense, a sealed record (precluding collection of the desired data), and an invalid case number (case not located in county records). A listing by county showing the YOBG allocation amount as well as the number of cases in the target sample and final sample is provided in Appendix I. 17 Table 12: Cases Excluded from Initial Study Sample Reason for Exclusion Number Percent Early Termination of Jurisdiction by the Court 31 33.3% Non-Felony Adjudicated Offense 24 25.8% Transferred Out of County 13 14.0% Sent to DJJ Upon Initial Disposition 10 10.8% Sealed Record 8 8.6% Disposition of Case Occurred Prior to Fiscal Year 2011/12 3 3.2% Invalid ID (Could Not Locate in County Records) 3 3.2% Invalid Disposition Date (Does Not Match County Records) 1 1.1% Total 93 Characteristics of Final Sample Table 13 compares the age and other demographic characteristics of the final sample with those of the study population, i.e., all juveniles in the JCPSS database with felony adjudications between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. Inspection of the table shows that the final sample is highly similar to the study population. Table 13: Demographic Characteristics of Study Population and Final Sample Study Study Population Sample Characteristic (N=13,591) (N=1,160) Mean Age (on Date of A djudication) 16.58 16.47 Gender Female 12.46% 12.07% Male 87.54% 87.93% Race/Ethnicity American Indian 0.34% 0.86% Asian Indian 0.04% 0.00% Black 24.49% 24.05% Cambodian 0.07% 0.10% Chinese 0.10% 0.09% Filipino 0.38% 0.60% Guamanian 0.06% 0.09% Hawaiian 0.04% 0.09% Hispanic 56.46% 53.36% Japanese 0.02% 0.00% Korean 0.04% 0.00% Laotian 0.07% 0.09% Other 2.04% 2.84% Other Asian 0.62% 0.34% Pacific Islander 0.27% 0.26% Samoan 0.19% 0.26% Unknown 0.49% 0.00% Vietnamese 0.26% 0.43% White 14.01% 16.64% 18 Data Collection Instrument Performance Outcome data were collected via electronic files formatted in Excel. In addition to collecting information on selected outcomes, data were also collected for five types of Assessments, seven types of Placements, and 31 types of Direct Services. For each such applicable item, information was collected on all source(s) of funding, (YOBG, JJCPA, and Other funds). Baseline data were also collected on each juvenile as of the date of disposition (enrolled in school, case plan in place, employed, etc.). As mentioned previously, all service and outcome data were collected with reference to the one-year period following each juvenile’s adjudicated felony disposition date. Data Verification All data received from the counties were subjected to a series of data checking procedures to identify missing or conflicting responses. Counties were alerted to all such items and worked with BSCC staff to resolve any discrepancies. All but a small number were resolved. Results YOBG-Funded Services Counties reported providing one or more YOBG-funded Assessment, Placement or Direct Service to 488 of the 1,160 youth sampled (42.1 percent). Alternatively, counties reported that 672 of the sample youth (57.9 percent) did not receive any YOBG-funded Assessments, Placements or other Direct Services. Within this report, these youth are referred to as YOBG Youth and Other Youth, respectively. As shown in Table 14, the average number of Assessments, Placements and Direct Services received by YOBG Youth, was significantly greater than for Other Youth. Specifically, YOBG Youth received an average of 3.2 Assessments, 2.1 Placements, and 8.4 Direct Services; compared to an average of 2.8 Assessments, 1.9 Placements, and 7.1 Direct Services for Other Youth. For each category, as well as for all categories combined, the difference in the averages is statistically significant. As in all subsequent tables, statistically significant findings are presented in bold to distinguish them from findings which are not statistically significant.6 Table 14: Mean Number of Assessments, Placements and Direct Services YOBG Youth Other Youth Assessments 3.2 2.8 Placements 2.1 1.9 Direct Services 8.4 7.1 Combined 13.6 11.8 6 As is standard practice, a probability value of .05 or less (p≤.05) was used as the criterion for statistical significance. Chi-Square was the predominant test statistic used to evaluate statistical significance. 19 The percentage of YOBG Youth and Other Youth who received each type of Assessment, Placement and Direct Service are shown in Table 15 (see next page). Within each category, the specific types are ordered from highest to lowest based on the percentage rate for YOBG Youth. As reported in Table 15, a significantly greater percentage of YOBG Youth received four of the five types of Assessments. The most frequently occurring Assessment for each group was Risk and/or Needs Assessment, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for this type of Assessment. With respect to Placements, a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were placed in a Juvenile Hall or Camp, whereas significantly more Other Youth spent time at a Ranch or Other Placement. Juvenile Hall and Home on Probation were by far the most prevalent Placements experienced by both YOBG Youth and Other Youth. The results also reflect the fluid nature of the youth during the one-year period from the date of disposition, with many youth in both groups spending time in more than one type of Placement during this time period. The results for Direct Services show that a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth received 17 of the 31 Direct Services listed, and a higher percentage of Other Youth received the Direct Services of Day or Evening Treatment Program, Restorative Justice, and Transitional Living Services. 20 Table 15: Assessments, Placements and Direct Services Rates YOBG Youth Other Youth Assessment, Placement or Direct Service (488) (672) Assessments Risk and/or Needs Assessment 82.6% 80.4% Substance Abuse Screening 67.4% 60.4% Detention Assessment 61.5% 51.8% Mental Health Screening 57.0% 51.3% Educational Assessment 53.7% 37.9% Placements Home on Probation 84.8% 82.0% Juvenile Hall 76.2% 59.1% Camp 25.2% 13.5% Other Placement 9.4% 16.4% Private Residential Care Facility 4.1% 4.5% Ranch 3.9% 7.1% Other Secure/Semi-Secure Facility 2.7% 3.7% Direct Services Case Plan 82.2% 85.0% Intensive Probation Supervision 62.1% 46.4% Alcohol/DrugTreatment 60.7% 50.9% Restitution 49.0% 49.0% Individual Mental Health Counseling 43.0% 34.5% Anger Management Counseling/Treatment 42.6% 36.0% Community Service 40.4% 39.9% Group Counseling 39.3% 33.8% Pro-Social Skills Training 36.3% 22.5% Recreational Activities 35.7% 27.7% Electronic Monitoring 33.8% 21.0% Gender Specific Programming for Females 33.3% 25.8% Aggression Replacement Therapy 29.1% 15.6% Life/Independent Living Skills Trng. 25.4% 23.4% Family Counseling 24.4% 22.2% Re-Entry or Aftercare Services 24.2% 14.7% Gender Specific Programming for Males 19.7% 15.3% Gang Intervention Program 18.0% 13.2% Mentoring 17.2% 11.3% Job Readiness Training 16.6% 8.5% Day or Evening Treatment Program 15.8% 25.3% After School Services 14.8% 10.9% Tutoring 14.5% 12.5% Special Education Services 13.5% 11.3% Parent Education 13.5% 13.1% Restorative Justice 13.3% 28.9% Vocational Training 12.5% 7.4% Transitional Living Services 9.4% 13.2% Functional Family Therapy 9.2% 6.5% Job Placement 8.0% 5.8% Monetary Incentives 1.8% 1.3% 21 YOBG Funding Priorities The results reported in Tables 14 and 15 clearly indicate that youth who benefited from some YOBG funding were the recipients of greater numbers of Assessments, Placements, and Direct Services. However, an important but different question not addressed by these results is that of priorities for YOBG funding. In other words, when a specific type of Assessment, Placement or Direct Service is provided to a youth, how often is it funded in whole or in part by YOBG? Results pertaining to this question are reported in Table 16. Specifically, two values are reported for each type of Assessment, Placement, and Direct Service – the number of youth who were the recipients of the Assessment, Placement or Direct Service (irrespective of funding source); and for these youth, the percentage of cases where YOBG funds were used in whole or in part to fund the Assessment, Placement, or Direct Service. Within each general category of Assessments, Placements, and Direct Services, items are listed from highest to lowest in terms of the percentage of cases who received the intervention pursuant to the expenditure of YOBG funds. For example, as shown in the table, a total of 517 of the 1,160 cases in the Final Study Sample received an Educational Assessment during the one-year period from the date of disposition for their felony adjudicated offense. And for 18.2 percent of these cases, YOBG funds paid for some or all expenses associated with these Assessments. The results in Table 16 show little variation in the priorities given to YOBG funding, with YOBG funds being spent on 18.0 percent of all Assessments, 18.8 percent of all Placements and 22.5 percent of all Direct Services. Among the different types of Assessments, YOBG funds were most often spent on Risk and/or Needs Assessments (23.8 percent of cases) and least often on Detention Assessments (11.9 percent of cases). By a large margin, YOBG funding for Placements most frequently occurred for Camp (49.1 percent of cases), whereas for the most frequently occurring Placement of Home on Probation YOBG funds were spent in only 14.9 percent of cases. YOBG funding for Juvenile Hall placements (20.2 percent of cases) was comparable to the frequency with which YOBG funds were spent on all Placements (18.8 percent of cases). Among Direct Services, YOBG funds were most often spent on the relatively infrequently occurring service of Aggression Replacement Therapy (43.7 percent of cases). By contrast, with respect to the three most frequently provided Direct Services, YOBG funding exceeded that for all Direct Services combined (22.5 percent of cases) for Alcohol/Drug Treatment (26.6 percent of cases) and Intensive Probation Supervision (28.9 percent), and was less for Case Plan Development (20.7 percent of cases). The most striking feature of the overall pattern of results is the similarity in the percentage of cases funded across and within all Assessments, Placements, and Direct Services. 22 Table 16: Frequency of YOBG Funding of Provided Assessments, Placements and Direct Services Youth Percent Funded by Assessment, Placement or Direct Service Served YOBG Assessments Risk and/or Needs Assessment 943 23.8% Substance Abuse Screening 735 18.5% Educational Assessment 517 18.2% Mental Health Screening 623 14.8% Detention Assessment 648 11.9% All Assessments 3,466 18.0% Placements Camp 214 49.1% Juvenile Hall 769 20.2% Ranch 67 14.9% Home on Probation 965 14.9% Other Secure Placement Facility 38 10.5% Private Residential Care 50 8.0% Other Placement 156 1.9% All Placements 2,259 18.8% Direct Services Aggression Replacement Therapy 247 43.7% Gender Specific Programming for Males 175 34.9% Pro-Social Skills Training 328 32.6% Re-Entry or Aftercare Services 217 30.0% Job Readiness Training 138 29.7% Vocational Training Funding 111 29.7% Intensive Probation Supervision 615 28.9% After School Services 145 28.3% Parent Education 154 27.9% Recreational Activities 360 27.8% Functional Family Therapy 89 27.0% Electronic Monitoring 306 26.8% Alcohol/Drug Treatment 638 26.6% Group Counseling 419 25.8% Anger Management Counseling/Treatment 450 24.2% Individual Mental Health Counseling 442 21.0% Case Plan 972 20.7% Mentoring 160 20.6% Gender Specific Programming for Females 40 20.0% Family Counseling 268 18.7% Gang Intervention 177 18.6% Life/Independent Living Skills Training/Education 281 18.5% Job Placement 78 16.7% Community Service 465 14.0% Special Education Services 142 13.4% Day or Evening Treatment Program 247 12.6% Restitution 568 11.6% Monetary Incentives 18 11.1% Tutoring Funding 155 11.0% Transitional Living Services and/or Placement 135 8.9% Restorative Justice 259 5.4% All Direct Services 8,799 22.5% 23 Baseline Characteristics Certain baseline information was collected for each youth in the final sample with reference to their status on the date of disposition. Results for these status indicators are presented in Table 17, with YOBG Youth compared to Other Youth, and show some significant differences between the two groups. Although relatively few youth in each group were employed on the date of disposition, a significantly greater percentage of YOBG Youth were employed. A significantly greater percentage of YOBG Youth also had substance abuse indicated in their file (note the high rate for both groups). A significantly greater percentage of Other Youth had a mental health diagnosis indicated in their file, although there was no significant group difference with respect to the taking of psychotropic medications. There were virtually no group differences with respect to educational status and achievement, and while a higher percentage of Other Youth had a WIC 300 indicated in their case file and had received a WIC 241.1 Evaluation, the group differences were not statistically significant. Table 17: Baseline Characteristics of Study Sample Baseline Characteristic YOBG Youth Other Youth Enrolled in School 90.9% 89.0% Employed 11.1% 6.2% High School Grad or GED Indicated in File 7.5% 7.5% Case Plan in Place 85.4% 87.9% Substance Abuse Indicated in File 80.3% 72.9% Mental Health Diagnosis Indicated in File 32.6% 42.6% Taking Psychotropic Medications 18.8% 15.0% Ever WIC 300 Indicated in Case File 7.4% 15.2% Ever Received a WIC 241.1 Evaluation 4.3% 7.1% Performance Outcomes Information was collected on seven different outcomes related to education and further involvement in the criminal justice system. All outcomes pertain to the one-year period from the date of disposition of the adjudicated felony. Results are reported in Table 18, and show that a higher percentage of YOBG Youth were enrolled in school during the year. No differences were found with respect to end-of-year school enrollment or school graduation/receipt of GED or equivalent during the year. Turning to criminal justice outcomes, no significant group differences were found with respect to new felony adjudications (Juvenile Court) or new felony convictions (Adult Court); however a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were on probation at the end of the year. And while the rates were low for both groups, a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were also committed to DJJ during the year. 24 Table 18: Performance Outcomes During One-Year Follow-Up Period Performance Outcome YOBG Youth Other Youth Enrolled in School At Any Time During Year 96.9% 94.0% Enrolled in School At End of Year 72.5% 75.0% Graduated from High School or Achieved GED or Equivalent 9.8% 7.3% New Felony Adjudication (Juvenile Court) 18.6% 16.1% New Felony Conviction (Adult Court) 4.3% 3.0% On Probation At End of Year 81.6% 76.2% Committed to DJJ During Year 2.5% .3% Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether performance outcome differences for the outcomes of enrollment in school during the year, probation status at the end of the year, and commitment to DJJ during the year were associated with any of the significant baseline differences as reported in Table 17. Results of these analyses are shown in Table 19. Table entries are the percentages of cases among both YOBG Youth and Other Youth who achieved each outcome within each baseline characteristic subgroup. For example, as reported in the table, among those who had substance abuse indicated in their file on the date of disposition, 81.0 percent were on probation at the end of the year; whereas for those who did not have substance abuse indicated in their file, 70.5 percent were on probation at the end of the year. As shown in Table 19, having substance abuse indicated in their file was found to be significantly related to the outcomes of being enrolled in school and being on probation at the end of the year. So while YOBG youth had higher overall rates of being enrolled in school during the year and being on probation at the end of the year (see Table 18), there was also a significantly higher rate of YOBG Youth with substance abuse in their file (see Table 17), and this baseline difference was found to be significantly related to these same two outcomes. Returning to Table 19, being employed or having a history of taking psychotropic medications on file were not found to be significantly related to any of the three outcomes for which group differences were found as reported in Table 18 (being enrolled in school during the year, being on probation at the end of the year, or receiving a DJJ commitment during the year). 25 Table 19: Performance Outcome Relationships with Baseline Characteristics Performance Outcome (One Year Follow-Up) Baseline Characteristic Employed Yes No Enrolled in School at Any Time During Year 92.3% 96.0% On Probation at End of Year 76.9% 79.4% Committed to DJJ During Year 1.1% 1.1% Substanc e Abuse Ind icated in Cas e File Yes No Enrolled in School at Any Time During Year 96.1% 92.4% On Probation at End of Year 81.0% 70.5% Committed to DJJ During Year 1.2% 1.1% Mental Healt h Diagnosis Indicated in Case File Yes No Enrolled in School at Any Time During Year 95.7% 95.0% On Probation at End of Year 78.2% 78.6% Committed to DJJ During Year 1.1% 1.3% Analyses were also conducted to examine whether outcomes were associated with “dosage effects” with respect to the number of Direct Services received during the year. Results of these analyses, which include all youth irrespective of whether they received YOBG funding, are presented in Table 20. The results show that being on probation at the end of the year; and being committed to DJJ during the year were both significantly related to the number of Direct Services received, with the overall trend showing that the more direct services a youth received, the higher the likelihood was that the case was on probation at the end of the year or had received a new felony adjudication during the year. Statistically significant results were also found for the outcomes of being enrolled in school during the year and being enrolled in school at the end of the year, however the pattern of results in less clear with respect to an increase in direct services being related to higher occurrences of these outcomes. Table 20: Performance Outcomes and Number of Direct Services Number of Direct Services Performance Outcome (One Year Follow-Up) 1-5 6-10 11-15 >15 Enrolled in School At Any Time During Year 93.0% 96.3% 99.5% 97.9% Enrolled in School At End of Year 69.2% 79.4% 78.3% 72.2% Graduated from High School or Achieved GED or Equivalent 8.1% 8.7% 7.4% 11.3% New Felony Adjudication (Juvenile Court) 15.1% 17.4% 17.5% 26.8% New Felony Conviction (Adult Court) 4.0% 2.9% 3.2% 3.1% On Probation At End of Year 73.3% 81.5% 84.3% 89.7% Committed to DJJ During Year .9% 1.6% .5% 3.1% 26 Comparison of Current Year Findings with Prior Year Findings Highlighted below are the similarities and differences in the findings for the current reporting year and prior reporting years.7 Age at Disposition for Felony Offense The mean age at the time of disposition for the felony offense upon which the juveniles were randomly selected (i.e., mean age at time of disposition for the offense that occurred during the applicable fiscal year) was 16.5, compared to 16.6 in each of the prior two years, and 16.5 the first year.8 Percentage of YOBG Youth The percentage of youth receiving one or more YOBG-funded Assessment, Placement, or Direct Service increased slightly from 38.3 percent in the previous year to 42.1 percent in the current year. Two years prior, 43.3 percent of the youth received one or more YOBG-funded Assessment, Placement or Direct Service. Three years prior the rate was 33 percent. Frequency of Assessments, Placements and Direct Services In all four years YOBG Youth received, on average, a significantly greater number of Assessments, a significantly greater number of Placements, and a significantly greater number of Direct Services during the one year from the date of disposition of their felony offense. However, as indicated in Table 21, the group differences were smaller this year than the previous year. For example, as indicated in Table 21, in the FY 2011-12 reporting year YOBG Youth received an average of 3.6 Assessments and Other Youth received an average of 2.8 Assessments – a difference of 0.8 Assessments. However, in the current reporting year (FY 2012-13) YOBG Youth received an average of 3.2 Assessments and Other Youth an average of 2.8 Assessments – a difference of 0.4 Assessments. Thus, the difference in the mean number of Assessments decreased from 0.8 Assessments to 0.4 Assessments, due entirely to the reduced mean number of Assessments for YOBG Youth from the prior reporting year. The pattern of results is identical for Placements (i.e., the mean number of Placements decreased for YOBG Youth and was unchanged for Other Youth), and the results for Direct Services show that while the mean number of Direct Services decreased for both groups in the current reporting year, the decrease was greater for YOBG Youth (from 10.0 to 8.4) than for Other Youth (from 7.5 to 7.1). 7 Current reporting year (FY 2012-13) findings refer to findings for youth who were randomly sampled based on an adjudicated felony that occurred in FY 2011-12; findings for prior years are those for youth who were randomly sampled based on an adjudicated felony that occurred in FY 2010-11, FY 2009-10, or FY 2008-09. 8 Similarly, the mean ages for the populations of juveniles from which the samples were randomly selected were 16.6 in the current year and the previous two years, and 16.5 the first reporting year. 27 Table 21: Mean Number of Assessments, Placements and Direct Services in the Two Most Recent Reporting Years FY 2012-13 FY 2011-12 YOBG Other Mean YOBG Other Mean Youth Youth Difference Youth Youth Difference Assessments 3.2 2.8 0.4 3.6 2.8 0.8 Placements 2.1 1.9 0.2 2.2 1.9 0.3 Direct Services 8.4 7.1 1.3 10.0 7.5 2.5 Combined 13.6 11.8 1.8 15.8 12.2 3.6 The percentage of YOBG Youth and Other Youth who received each type of Assessment, Placement and Direct Service in each of the four reporting years is presented in Table 22 Inspection of Table 22 shows that with the exception of the current reporting year, a significantly greater percentage of YOBG Youth received each of the five types of Assessments, and in the current year this was true for all but Risk/Needs Assessment. In every year the Assessment most frequently conducted for the youth in both groups was a Risk/Needs Assessment. Results reported for Placements show that by far the most frequently occurring placements experienced by youth in both groups are Juvenile Hall and Home on Probation. In every year a significantly greater percentage of YOBG Youth spent some time in Juvenile Hall; whereas over the course of four years there has either been no significant difference in the percentage of youth who were Home on Probation, or the percentage has been significantly higher for Other Youth. Among the less frequently occurring types of placements, in each of the past three years significantly more YOBG Youth were placed in a Camp; and while there are no discernible trends in the results for the other less frequently occurring Placements, in the current reporting year a significantly higher percentage of Other Youth spent time in a Ranch or Other Placement. Results for Direct Services show that YOBG Youth received consistently greater levels of such services. However in the current reporting year a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth received each of 17 specific services, compared to 24 specific services the previous reporting year. Not only is this a noteworthy reduction, but it also reflects a change in the previous trend of a significantly higher percentage of YOBG youth receiving each of a greater number of specific services from year to year. Case Plan Development has been the most frequently provided Direct Service to youth in both groups all four years, and Intensive Probation Supervision, Alcohol/Drug Treatment, and Restitution have also been among the most highly occurring Direct Services for both groups. For all of these Direct Services except Case Plan Development (where there was no significant group difference in the current reporting 28 year), the frequency of occurrence has been significantly higher for YOBG youth in every reporting year. The current reporting year also marks the second consecutive year in which Other Youth received Restorative Justice and Transitional Living Services at significantly higher rates than YOBG Youth, and the first time a significantly higher percentage of Other Youth participated in a Day or Evening Treatment Program. Baseline Characteristics and Performance Outcomes Table 23 shows the baseline characteristics of YOBG Youth and Other Youth in each of the four reporting years. As indicated in the table: In all four years a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth had substance abuse indicated in their file at the time of disposition for their felony offense. As in the first two years, a significantly higher percentage of Other Youth had a mental health diagnosis on file in the current reporting year. Unlike the past four years, the percentage of cases with a Case Plan in place was not significantly greater for YOBG Youth in the current reporting year. Unlike in the previous two years, the percentage of cases with a WIC 300 declaration indicated in their file was not significantly higher for Other Youth in the current reporting year. In two of the four reporting years (including the current year) a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth had a record in their file of taking psychotropic medications. Significant group differences have never been found with respect to graduating or receiving a GED, or ever receiving a WIC 241.1 evaluation, as indicated in case files. For the first time in the current reporting year, a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were reported as being employed at the time of disposition for their felony offense. 29 Table 22: Percentage of YOBG Youth and Other Youth Receiving Assessments, Placements and Direct Services in Each of the Last Four Reporting Years9 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 YOBG Other YOBG Other YOBG Other YOBG Other Assessment/ Placement/Direct Service Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Assessments Risk/Needs Assessment 82.6% 80.4% 87.1% 74.6% 92.4% 74.4% 91.9% 80.4% Detention Assessment 61.5% 51.8% 74.3% 53.5% 71.1% 48.6% 78.4% 58.1% Substance Abuse Screening 67.4% 60.4% 71.0% 58.1% 81.9% 65.0% 76.3% 62.0% Educational Assessment 53.7% 37.9% 63.8% 50.4% 74.8% 46.8% 72.2% 59.5% Mental Health Screening 57.0% 51.3% 63.4% 44.1% 65.9% 51.9% 67.4% 48.3% Placements Juvenile Hall 76.2% 59.1% 80.8% 60.8% 77.7% 57.7% 74.3% 65.7% Home on Probation 84.8% 82.0% 75.6% 83.6% 78.3% 83.0% 75.4% 77.7% Camp 25.2% 13.5% 32.2% 16.5% 28.9% 11.6% 20.4% 24.1% Other Place ment 9.4% 16.4% 10.7% 14.3% 12.9% 12.0% 15.0% 7.2% Private Residential Care Facility 4.1% 4.5% 8.5% 6.8% 4.8% 7.5% 4.2% 11.5% Other Secure/Semi-Secure Rehab. Facility 2.7% 3.7% 7.8% 1.6% 4.0% 6.4% 5.7% 4.4% Ranch 3.9% 7.1% 7.4% 7.7% 7.2% 4.1% 12.3% 3.4% Direct Serv ices Case Plan 82.2% 85.0% 85.4% 77.8% 85.9% 77.3% 88.3% 73.6% Intensive Probation Supervision 62.1% 46.4% 66.9% 40.7% 64.9% 46.3% 60.5% 31.8% Alcohol/Drug Treatment 60.7% 50.9% 64.7% 51.6% 61.0% 48.1% 56.9% 36.0% Restitution 49.0% 49.0% 56.2% 61.9% 49.6% 43.5% 47.0% 34.4% Individual Mental Health Counseling 43.0% 34.5% 52.3% 36.5% 42.4% 32.9% 41.6% 41.4% Group Counseling 39.3% 33.8% 49.2% 37.0% 46.4% 43.4% 46.4% 35.0% Recreational Activities 35.7% 27.7% 48.1% 42.4% 44.4% 33.0% 39.5% 43.3% Anger Management Counseling/Treatment 42.6% 36.0% 45.1% 33.9% 46.8% 32.6% 44.9% 27.9% Pro-Social Skills Training 36.3% 22.5% 44.2% 29.7% 35.1% 24.5% 37.7% 36.0% Community Service 40.4% 39.9% 42.5% 45.3% 45.6% 44.9% 45.8% 34.0% Family Counseling 24.4% 22.2% 41.6% 29.2% 38.4% 32.6% 32.0% 23.3% Aggression Replacement Therapy 29.1% 15.6% 36.4% 14.5% 28.1% 12.6% 24.9% 7.1% Re-Entry or Aftercare Services 24.2% 14.7% 35.9% 23.2% 39.8% 25.9% 25.1% 22.6% Gender Specific Programming for Males 19.7% 15.3% 30.3% 7.9% 19.8% 10.8% 23.2% 17.2% Electronic Monitoring 33.8% 21.0% 30.1% 19.2% 24.5% 17.0% 26.9% 20.1% Gang Intervention Program 18.0% 13.2% 29.0% 13.2% 26.3% 14.0% 28.4% 20.8% Life/Independent Living Skills Training 25.4% 23.4% 25.9% 20.4% 18.9% 13.4% 28.7% 33.7% After School Services 14.8% 10.9% 22.4% 16.9% 24.1% 19.0% 15.9% 14.9% Mentoring 17.2% 11.3% 22.0% 10.1% 17.9% 21.3% 21.3% 20.4% Day or Evening Treatment Program 15.8% 25.3% 19.6% 17.6% 28.1% 21.0% 25.7% 14.9% Special Education Services 13.5% 11.3% 19.0% 13.1% 12.5% 11.0% 17.7% 11.7% Parenting Education 13.5% 13.1% 18.5% 11.5% 14.9% 12.2% 17.7% 7.4% Job Readiness Training 16.6% 8.5% 17.9% 9.6% 17.5% 8.4% 21.9% 12.6% Gender Specific Programming for Females 33.3% 25.8% 17.5% 15.4% 39.6% 30.5% 47.2% 24.1% Functional Family Therapy 9.2% 6.5% 15.9% 10.7% 9.0% 5.8% 7.8% 9.0% Tutoring 14.5% 12.5% 13.9% 10.3% 14.7% 10.4% 12.3% 8.9% Restorative Justice 13.3% 28.9% 12.9% 28.5% 6.8% 9.6% 9.0% 7.5% Vocational Training 12.5% 7.4% 11.3% 6.2% 12.2% 8.1% 17.4% 9.3% Transitional Living Services 9.4% 13.2% 10.0% 14.1% 9.4% 12.0% 15.0% 13.7% Job Placement 8.0% 5.8% 10.0% 4.5% 7.6% 4.6% 8.7% 8.3% Monetary Incentives 1.8% 1.3% 8.7% 8.1% 5.6% 6.4% 3.3% 5.0% 9 Percentages in bold indicate statistically significant differences in the given reporting year. 30 Table 23: Baseline Characteristics of YOBG Youth and Other Youth By Reporting Year 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 YOBG Other YOBG Other YOBG Other YOBG Other Baseline Characteristic Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Enrolled in School 90.9% 89.0% 89.8% 86.4% 88.3% 87.3% 89.5% 82.6% High School Grad or GED Indicated in File 7.5% 7.5% 5.8% 7.1% 5.9% 6.1% 6.0% 4.7% Employed 11.1% 6.2% 7.1% 7.3% 6.6% 8.4% 10.2% 10.6% Case Plan in Place 85.4% 87.9% 85.3% 77.2% 89.7% 80.0% 82.0% 69.9% Substance Abuse Indicated in Case File 80.3% 72.9% 82.5% 76.1% 80.0% 70.5% 83.2% 73.9% Mental Health Diagnosis in Case File 32.6% 42.6% 36.2% 35.9% 38.5% 44.3% 32.9% 42.4% Taking Psychotropic Medications 18.8% 15.0% 19.5% 14.2% 14.8% 15.5% 16.5% 10.5% Ever WIC 300 Indicated in File 7.4% 15.2% 10.7% 17.0% 18.4% 24.3% 9.6% 6.2% Ever Received a 241.1 Evaluation 4.3% 7.1% 4.8% 5.8% 4.6% 5.3% 6.9% 4.9% Performance outcomes for the two groups in each of the four reporting years are presented in Table 24. Results for outcomes pertaining to educational status and achievement indicate the following: In all four years, a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were enrolled in school at some time during the one year following disposition of their felony offense, and in all four years there was no significant difference in the percentage of youth in the two groups who were enrolled in school at the end of this one-year period. While YOBG Youth have consistently graduated or received their GED or equivalent at higher rates than Other Youth, the difference was statistically significant in just the first reporting year. With respect to criminal justice outcomes: In all four years the percentage of youth on probation at the end of the one-year period from the date of disposition was higher for YOBG Youth, and the percentage was significantly higher in each of the last two reporting years. The percentage of youth receiving a new felony adjudication has also been consistently higher for YOBG Youth, although the current reporting year marks the second consecutive year the percentage was not significantly higher for YOBG Youth than for Other Youth. For the past three years there have been no significant differences in the new felony conviction rates for the two groups; whereas the rate was significantly higher for Other Youth in the first reporting year. DJJ commitments decreased for both groups during the current year, but for the second time in four years the rate was significantly higher for YOBG Youth. 31 Table 24: Outcomes for YOBG Youth and Other Youth by Reporting Year 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 YOBG Other YOBG Other YOBG Other YOBG Other Performance Outcome Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Youth Enrolled in School During Year 96.9% 94.0% 97.6% 92.4% 95.8% 91.8% 95.2% 89.8% Enrolled in School at End of Year 72.5% 75.0% 73.5% 70.7% 70.6% 73.7% 72.8% 67.1% Graduated from High School/Received GED 9.8% 7.3% 8.5% 7.6% 7.6% 6.6% 12.0% 8.1% New Felony Adjudication (Juvenile Court) 18.6% 16.1% 15.7% 11.9% 17.1% 10.0% 19.8% 12.4% New Felony Conviction (Adult Court) 4.3% 3.0% 3.9% 4.5% 4.8% 3.7% 1.8% 6.4% On Probation at End of Year 81.6% 76.2% 84.5% 70.5% 76.5% 71.5% 73.1% 72.1% Committed to DJJ During Year 2.5% 0.3% 5.0% 4.3% 3.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% Outcome Relationships with Number of Direct Services In all four years the number of Direct Services was found to be significantly related to the outcomes of Enrolled in School at any time During Year, Enrolled in School at End of Year, and On Probation at The End of the Year. That is, those who received more Direct Services were more likely to be enrolled in school during the year and at the end of the year, and were also more likely to be on probation at the end of the year. Also in all four years, no significant relationships were found between the number of Direct Services and the outcomes of Graduated from High School/GED and New Felony Conviction in Adult Court. No consistent pattern of results has been found to exist between the number of Direct Services and the occurrence of the outcomes of New Felony Adjudication in Juvenile Court and Commitment to DJJ. Summary Counties provided detailed information for a representative sample of 1,160 youth with felony adjudications during FY 2011-12. Among this group, approximately 42.1 percent were the beneficiary of YOBG funding during the one-year period following the date of disposition of their adjudicated offense. This compares to YOBG funding rates of 38.3 percent, 43.3 percent and 33 percent in the three prior years. As in the past three years, YOBG Youth received significantly more Assessments, Placements, and other Direct Services than Other Youth. However, in the current year the total number of individual Assessments/Placements/Direct Services for which significantly more YOBG Youth benefited was 17, and marked the end of a steady increase in the number of such occurrences of from 18 in the first reporting year to 22 in the second reporting year and 24 in the third reporting year. 32 For both YOBG Youth and Other Youth in all four years, the most frequently administered type of Assessment was a Risk/Needs Assessment and the most frequently occurring Direct Service was Development of Case Plan. The most frequently occurring Placements were Juvenile Hall and Home on Probation, and in every reporting year a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth received a Placement in Juvenile Hall. For the third consecutive year the percentage of YOBG Youth receiving a Placement in Camp was also significantly higher. For the 1,160 youth in the Study Sample, YOBG funds were spent on 18.0 percent of all provided Assessments; 18.8 percent of all provided Placements; and 22.5 percent of all provided Direct Services. Thus, little differentiation was found in the frequency with which some YOBG funds were used in support of these three major types of interventions. In all four years, a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were enrolled in school at some time during the one year following disposition of their felony offense. Whereas the percentage of YOBG Youth receiving a new felony adjudication was significantly higher the first two reporting years, no such difference was found in the two most current reporting years. While DJJ commitment rates were lower for both groups in the current reporting year, the rate was significantly higher for YOBG Youth. For the second consecutive year a significantly higher percentage of YOBG Youth were on probation at the end of the one-year reporting period. For the past three years, no significant differences have been found in the new felony conviction rates for the two groups. In all years, for all youth, the number of Direct Services was found to be associated with involvement in school, and with continued status as a probationer, but not with educational achievement or a new felony conviction. 33 Appendix A Expenditures and Per Capita Costs by Expenditure Category (All Funding Sources) Total Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Category (All Funds) Costs Camp $50,731,305 $22,134 Home on Probation $10,463,439 $2,136 Juvenile Hall $24,155,660 $4,455 Other Placement $9,776,025 $11,980 Other Secure/Semi-Secure Rehab Facility $10,984,490 $10,050 Ranch $155,482 $4,092 All Placements $106,266,401 $7,299 After School Services $32,221 $109 Aggression Replacement Therapy $173,938 $920 Alcohol and Drug Treatment $607,666 $877 Community Service $103,518 $598 Day or Evening Treatment Program $2,906,339 $2,869 Detention Assessment(s) $298,557 $407 Development of Case Plan $11,342 $38 Electronic Monitoring $925,710 $786 Family Counseling $1,336,173 $3,535 Functional Family Therapy $725,281 $9,801 Gang Intervention $244,309 $2,443 Gender Specific Programming for Boys $163,966 $455 Gender Specific Programming for Girls $170,363 $767 Group Counseling $19,158 $225 Individual Mental Health Counseling $1,429,402 $1,007 Intensive Probation Supervision $7,885,800 $2,873 Job Readiness Training $208,289 $1,016 Life/Independent Living Skills Training $54,205 $81 Mental Health Screening $55,193 $216 Mentoring $216,765 $2,331 Other Direct Service $5,721,161 $1,217 Parenting Education $6,417 N/A Pro-Social Skills Training $868,197 $1,256 Re-Entry or Aftercare Services $4,062,573 $2,271 Recreational Activities $148,147 $426 Restorative Justice $4,950 $225 Risk and/or Needs Assessment $2,265,200 $307 Special Education Services $13,250 $34 Transitional Living Services/Placement $60,476 $1,100 Tutoring $8,950 $448 Vocational Training $670,301 $2,588 All Direct Services $31,397,818 $1,170 Capital Improvements $132,101 Contract Services $85,516 Equipment $109,343 Other Capacity Building/Maintenance $406,904 Other Procurements $30,136 Staff Salaries/Benefits $4,219,169 Staff Training/Professional Development $368,805 All Capacity Building/Maintenance Activities $5,351,974 34 Appendix B Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Budget Line Item FY 2012-13 FY2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2009-10 Line Item Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Salaries & Benefits $67,997,513 76.8% $69,501,485 76.5% $76,547,445 78.8% $64,946,279 75.0% Services & Supplies $8,124,244 9.2% $7,411,467 8.2% $7,053,129 7.3% $7,412,578 8.6% Professional Services $5,724,583 6.5% $7,268,432 8.0% $7,532,683 7.8% $6,685,656 7.7% CBOs $5,314,540 6.0% $3,764,557 4.1% $3,051,254 3.1% $2,951,852 3.4% Fixed Assets $232,369 0.3% $143,632 0.2% $74,125 0.1% $711,554 0.8% Admin. Overhead $701,427 0.8% $2,140,280 2.4% $851,678 0.9% $1,322,726 1.5% Other Costs $388,941 0.4% $565,433 0.6% $1,992,696 2.1% $2,539,428 2.9% Total $88,483,617 $90,795,286 $97,103,010 $86,570,073 35 Appendix C Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Category Type Expenditure Category Type Fiscal Year 2012-13 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Amount % Total Placements $59,806,502 67.6% $63,039,975 69.4% $69,104,839 71.2% $62,944,571 72.7% Direct Services $26,486,759 29.9% $25,632,549 28.2% $25,537,590 26.3% $20,918,716 24.2% Capacity Bldng./Maint. $2,190,356 2.5% $2,122,762 2.3% $2,460,581 2.5% $2,706,781 3.1% Total $88,483,617 100.0% $90,795,286 100.0% $97,103,010 100.0% $86,570,073 100.0% 36 Appendix D Comparison of YOBG Expenditures by Expenditure Category and Fiscal Year YOBG Expenditures Total Youth Served Expenditure Category 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Camp $31,539,106 $32,721,278 $41,622,302 $30,111,786 2,292 1,969 2,599 1,859 Juvenile Hall $8,552,368 $8,719,676 $6,772,688 $7,251,931 5,422 4,108 2,094 1,140 Other Secure/Semi-Secure Facility $7,760,575 $8,312,863 $7,307,863 $6,744,542 1,093 1,365 712 814 Other Placement $6,094,416 $4,149,027 $5,652,315 $7,715,201 816 837 2,290 664 Home on Probation $5,742,128 $9,062,040 $7,686,682 $7,896,109 4,898 4,940 5,975 3,676 Ranch $117,909 $75,091 $62,989 $3,225,002 38 50 52 410 All Placements $59,806,502 $63,039,975 $69,104,839 $62,944,571 14,559 13,269 13,722 8,563 Intensive Probation Supervision $6,633,044 $5,574,312 $6,568,079 $6,027,161 2,745 2,461 2,128 2,361 Other Direct Service $4,969,585 $5,352,780 $2,674,060 $2,764,760 4,702 4,086 7,211 3,667 Re-Entry or Aftercare Services $3,665,753 $2,733,452 $2,590,080 $2,087,231 1,789 2,162 1,658 776 Day/Evening Treatment Program $2,529,646 $2,193,519 $3,331,564 $3,036,487 1,013 879 982 816 Risk and/or Needs Assessment $1,574,655 $1,525,376 $1,412,358 $1,514,124 7,376 4,908 5,614 12,582 Family Counseling $1,336,173 $1,202,578 $1,005,196 $1,001,667 378 138 326 99 Mental Health Counseling $1,298,880 $1,503,618 $1,447,942 $955,348 1,419 1,343 1,010 1,542 Pro-Social Skills Training $829,230 $799,880 $122,367 $80,040 691 889 514 288 Vocational Training $670,301 $739,844 $917,161 $929,657 259 261 285 246 Electronic Monitoring $579,166 $714,481 $141,927 $105,176 693 1,679 672 756 Alcohol and Drug Treatment $496,650 $473,464 $823,008 $266,876 1,177 512 1,124 833 Gang Intervention $244,309 $200,666 $134,364 $111,702 100 96 58 56 Mentoring $216,765 $214,067 $683,347 $398,251 93 108 362 201 Aggression Replacement Therapy $173,938 $191,031 $482,280 $102,624 189 247 430 184 Programming for Girls $170,363 $234,865 $621,128 $192,596 222 217 516 279 Programming for Boys $163,966 $136,745 $56,411 $53,222 360 265 176 223 Functional Family Therapy $158,287 $171,002 $144,884 $184,739 74 65 135 166 Detention Assessment(s) $154,713 $219,070 $427,724 $241,490 734 1,788 2,183 77 Recreational Activities $148,147 $337,547 $193,427 $165,042 348 422 725 524 Community Service $103,518 $50,451 $75,276 $21,354 173 140 40 65 Job Readiness Training $103,507 $140,458 $830,624 $318,780 205 237 197 32 Transitional Living Srvcs./Placement $60,476 $78,055 $0 $0 55 115 0 0 Mental Health Screening $55,193 $212,012 $6,156 $10,200 255 588 128 173 Life/Independent Living Skills Trng. $54,205 $55,345 $93,208 $32,742 671 491 291 530 After School Services $32,221 $28,721 $29,128 $0 295 413 470 0 Group Counseling $19,158 $58,197 $85,062 $0 85 7 257 0 Special Education Services $13,250 $27,014 $26,987 $29,997 395 417 484 37 Development of Case Plan $11,342 $412,299 $551,762 $256,318 295 642 618 160 Tutoring $8,950 $5,100 $4,725 $0 20 15 20 0 Parenting Education $6,417 $0 $245 $2,987 0 0 N/A 83 Restorative Justice $4,950 $0 $0 $10,433 22 0 0 30 Substance Abuse Sreening 0 $0 $0 $670 0 0 0 11 All Direct Services $26,486,758 $25,632,549 $25,537,590 $20,918,716 26,833 25,725 28,844 26,977 Staff Salaries/Benefits $1,188,927 $1,198,314 $1,167,266 $1,097,788 Staff Training/ Development $367,542 $299,056 $491,849 $315,242 Other Capacity Building/Maintenance $315,923 $242,653 $515,637 $493,485 Capital Improvements $132,101 $0 $27,700 $224,891 Equipment $109,343 $114,923 $188,089 $284,832 Contract Services $62,438 $37,101 $5,000 $168,709 Other Procurements $14,082 $230,715 $65,040 $121,839 All Capacity Building Activities $2,190,356 $2,122,762 $2,460,581 $2,706,786 Total $88,483,616 $90,795,286 $97,103,010 $86,570,072 41,392 38,994 42,566 35,540 37 Appendix E Allocation Year Source of FY 2012-13 YOBG Expenditures Fiscal Year Allocation Total YOBG FY 2012/13 FY 2011/12 FY 2010/11 FY 2009/10 FY 2008/09 FY 2007/08 County Expenditures Amount % Tot Amount % Tot Amount % Tot Amount % Tot Amount % Tot Amount % Tot Alameda $3,267,886 $3,267,886 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Alpine $119,587 $117,122 97.9% $2,465 2.1% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Amador $83,723 $19,795 23.6% $63,927 76.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Butte $271,691 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $271,691 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Calaveras $111,459 $93,370 83.8% $18,089 16.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% COLUSA $111,215 $99,576 89.5% $11,639 10.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Contra Costa $2,096,942 $2,096,942 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Del Norte $137,685 $110,676 80.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $20,828 15.1% $6,181 4.5% $0 0.0% El Dorado $483,356 $291,217 60.2% $192,139 39.8% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Fresno $3,118,461 $2,291,272 73.5% $827,189 26.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Glenn $152,976 $72,558 47.4% $80,418 52.6% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Humboldt $229,941 $206,148 89.7% $23,793 10.3% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Imperial $480,854 $480,854 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Inyo $157,504 $117,000 74.3% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $40,504 25.7% Kern $3,546,015 $3,140,386 88.6% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $405,629 11.4% Kings $398,985 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $271,176 68.0% $127,809 32.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Lake $144,385 $144,385 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Lassen $120,000 $120,000 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Los Angeles $24,066,019 $22,849,330 94.9% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $1,216,689 5.1% $0 0.0% Madera $333,654 $333,654 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Marin $478,488 $478,488 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Mariposa $138,944 $50,727 36.5% $88,217 63.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Mendocino $178,630 $0 0.0% $131,377 73.5% $47,253 26.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Merced $1,085,874 $1,085,874 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Modoc $117,000 $117,000 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Mono $93,961 $93,961 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Monterey $1,257,384 $1,065,553 84.7% $191,831 15.3% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Napa $472,224 $291,702 61.8% $180,522 38.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Nevada $213,355 $0 0.0% $213,355 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Orange $630,962 $630,962 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Placer $600,000 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $600,000 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Plumas $75,688 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $67,049 88.6% $8,639 11.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Riverside $5,389,356 $3,142,107 58.3% $2,247,249 41.7% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Sacramento $4,569,127 $4,233,541 92.7% $335,586 7.3% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Benito $59,008 $14,507 24.6% $44,501 75.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Bernardino $7,520,791 $7,520,791 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Diego $7,510,855 $5,020,611 66.8% $2,490,244 33.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Francisco $1,115,054 $766,909 68.8% $178,733 16.0% $169,412 15.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Joaquin $2,215,756 $1,247,306 56.3% $968,450 43.7% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Luis Obispo $418,776 $379,475 90.6% $39,301 9.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% San Mateo $1,963,677 $799,929 40.7% $1,159,931 59.1% $3,817 0.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Santa Barbara $883,055 $883,055 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Santa Clara $3,227,812 $3,077,112 95.3% $150,700 4.7% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Santa Cruz $399,471 $156,480 39.2% $242,992 60.8% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Shasta $362,749 $1,244 0.3% $361,505 99.7% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% SIERRA $117,000 $117,000 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Siskiyou $135,690 $48,689 35.9% $87,001 64.1% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Solano $820,270 $820,270 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Sonoma $1,045,043 $26,046 2.5% $908,345 86.9% $110,652 10.6% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Stanislaus $516,391 $516,391 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Sutter $296,744 $254,007 85.6% $42,737 14.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Tehama $134,837 $134,837 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Trinity $117,000 $117,000 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Tulare $1,740,496 $1,732,426 99.5% $8,070 0.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Tuolumne $117,500 $117,500 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Ventura $2,357,284 $544,745 23.1% $1,812,539 76.9% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Yolo $514,755 $514,755 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Yuba $160,272 $52,747 32.9% $107,525 67.1% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% All Counties $88,483,617 $71,905,918 81.3% $13,210,369 14.9% $1,269,359 1.4% $428,967 0.5% $1,222,870 1.4% $446,133 0.5% 38 Appendix F Summary of Per Capita Costs All Funds YOBG Funds Expenditure Category Counties Statewide Min Max Statewide Min Max Camp 12 $22,134 $3,486 $52,990 $13,761 $459 $24,307 Home on Probation 8 $2,136 $1,057 $9,255 $1,172 $289 $8,422 Juvenile Hall 15 $4,455 $137 $34,839 $1,577 $137 $23,690 Other Placement 3 $11,980 $9,192 $70,000 $7,469 $2,328 $28,601 Other Secure Rehab Facility 4 $10,050 $1,390 $167,314 $7,100 $1,390 $119,238 Ranch 3 $4,092 $2,324 $19,588 $3,103 $1,369 $16,573 All Placements 45 $7,299 $137 $167,314 $4,108 $137 $119,238 After School Services 2 $109 $62 $128 $109 $62 $128 Aggression Replacement Therapy 4 $920 $207 $1,507 $920 $207 $1,507 Alcohol and Drug Treatment 7 $877 $5 $3,394 $836 $5 $3,394 Community Service 2 $598 $554 $713 $598 $554 $713 Day or Evening Treatment Program 7 $2,869 $347 $20,561 $2,497 $344 $20,561 Detention Assessment(s) 2 $407 $36 $557 $211 $36 $282 Development of Case Plan 2 $38 $22 $45 $38 $22 $45 Electronic Monitoring 5 $786 $90 $3,493 $422 $90 $3,493 Family Counseling 2 $3,535 $1,907 $4,418 $3,535 $1,907 $4,418 Functional Family Therapy 2 $9,801 $2,398 $16,445 $2,139 $1,379 $2,821 Gang Intervention 1 $2,443 $2,443 $2,443 $2,443 $2,443 $2,443 Programming for Boys 3 $455 $377 $1,265 $455 $377 $1,265 Programming for Girls 3 $767 $352 $2,408 $767 $352 $2,408 Group Counseling 3 $225 $42 $1,981 $225 $42 $1,981 Individual Mental Health Counseling 9 $1,007 $467 $4,272 $915 $194 $2,803 Intensive Probation Supervision 17 $2,873 $949 $10,285 $2,416 $221 $10,285 Job Readiness Training 2 $1,016 $1,007 $2,809 $505 $494 $2,809 Life/Independent Living Skills Training 4 $81 $63 $150 $81 $63 $150 Mental Health Screening 3 $216 $59 $1,350 $216 $59 $1,350 Mentoring 3 $2,331 $1,028 $2,939 $2,331 $1,028 $2,939 Other Direct Service 16 $1,217 $21 $47,998 $1,057 $21 $47,675 Parenting Education 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pro-Social Skills Training 7 $1,256 $165 $3,049 $1,200 $165 $3,049 Re-Entry or Aftercare Services 9 $2,271 $195 $18,823 $2,049 $195 $18,823 Recreational Activities 3 $426 $171 $2,293 $426 $171 $2,293 Restorative Justice 1 $225 $225 $225 $225 $225 $225 Risk and/or Needs Assessment 19 $307 $5 $1,080 $213 $5 $1,080 Special Education Services 1 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 Transitional Living Services/Placement 1 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 Tutoring 1 $448 $448 $448 $448 $448 $448 Vocational Training 3 $2,588 $448 $5,818 $2,588 $448 $5,818 All Direct Services 145 $1,170 $5 $47,998 $987 $5 $47,675 Note: Costs shown are those based on total funds (all sources) and YOBG funds only. Statewide Per Capita Costs are based on total costs divided by total youth served. Also shown are Minimum and Maximum Per Capita Costs at the County level. 39 Appendix G Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by County Fixed Youth Salaries & Services & Professional Assets & Administrative Other Total County Programs Served Benefits Supplies Services CBOs Equipment Overhead Expenditures Expenditures Planned 2 440 $2,487,499 $45,600 $112,000 $0 $0 $450,883 $20,000 $3,115,982 Alameda Actual 2 450 $2,048,011 $609,337 $112,000 $0 $0 $480,173 $18,365 $3,267,886 Difference 0 10 -$439,488 $563,737 $0 $0 $0 $29,290 -$1,635 $151,904 Planned 4 246 $0 $0 $48,796 $75,100 $0 $0 $0 $123,896 Alpine Actual 5 446 $0 $0 $33,835 $85,218 $0 $407 $127 $119,587 Difference 1 200 $0 $0 -$14,961 $10,118 $0 $407 $127 -$4,309 Planned 7 144 $0 $0 $117,800 $28,000 $4,200 $0 $0 $150,000 Amador Actual 7 90 $0 $0 $44,268 $35,990 $3,465 $0 $0 $83,723 Difference 0 -54 $0 $0 -$73,532 $7,990 -$735 $0 $0 -$66,277 Planned 2 425 $167,332 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $174,832 Butte Actual 6 465 $179,800 $78,581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,310 $271,691 Difference 4 40 $12,468 $78,581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,810 $96,859 Planned 4 430 $44,356 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,253 $116,609 Calaveras Actual 4 0 $57,047 $0 $0 $0 $2,850 $0 $51,562 $111,459 Difference 0 -430 $12,691 $0 $0 $0 $2,850 $0 -$20,691 -$5,150 Planned 5 535 $86,634 $24,096 $6,270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 Colusa Actual 5 319 $82,275 $28,940 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,215 Difference 0 -216 -$4,359 $4,844 -$6,270 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$5,785 Planned 2 110 $2,162,454 $0 $45,900 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,248,354 Contra Costa Actual 2 95 $2,082,850 $14,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,096,942 Difference 0 -15 -$79,604 $14,092 -$45,900 -$40,000 $0 $0 $0 -$151,412 Planned 4 236 $95,000 $54,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $149,500 Del Norte Actual 6 69 $53,126 $68,399 $16,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,685 Difference 2 -167 -$41,874 $13,899 $16,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$11,815 Planned 2 122 $450,210 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,210 El Dorado Actual 2 136 $429,231 $0 $33,146 $0 $0 $20,979 $0 $483,356 Difference 0 14 -$20,979 $0 -$16,854 $0 $0 $20,979 $0 -$16,854 Planned 3 2,710 $2,379,923 $353,500 $460,000 $0 $0 $4,500 $0 $3,197,923 Fresno Actual 3 261 $2,398,252 $325,931 $390,091 $0 $0 $4,187 $0 $3,118,461 Difference 0 -2,449 $18,329 -$27,569 -$69,909 $0 $0 -$313 $0 -$79,462 Planned 1 60 $157,056 $39,249 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $198,305 Glenn Actual 1 75 $141,884 $11,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $152,976 Difference 0 15 -$15,172 -$28,157 -$2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$45,329 Planned 1 52 $234,468 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $234,468 Humboldt Actual 1 41 $229,941 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229,941 Difference 0 -11 -$4,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$4,527 Planned 3 390 $0 $0 $479,002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $479,002 Imperial Actual 2 151 $0 $0 $40,000 $440,854 $0 $0 $0 $480,854 Difference -1 -239 $0 $0 -$439,002 $440,854 $0 $0 $0 $1,852 Planned 9 980 $5,850 $29,000 $80,000 $0 $60,000 $5,850 $0 $180,700 Inyo Actual 9 427 $10,984 $52,813 $0 $0 $81,857 $5,850 $6,000 $157,504 Difference 0 -553 $5,134 $23,813 -$80,000 $0 $21,857 $0 $6,000 -$23,196 Planned 4 1,810 $2,304,469 $146,741 $685,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,137,055 Kern Actual 4 1,846 $2,803,662 $144,622 $597,731 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,546,015 Difference 0 36 $499,193 -$2,119 -$88,114 $0 $0 $0 $0 $408,960 Planned 8 2,754 $277,012 $101,508 $139,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $518,280 Kings Actual 8 1,640 $264,072 $27,978 $106,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $398,985 Difference 0 -1,114 -$12,940 -$73,530 -$32,825 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$119,295 Planned 5 138 $112,150 $5,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207,150 Lake Actual 4 118 $82,554 $0 $60,331 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $144,385 Difference -1 -20 -$29,596 -$5,000 -$29,669 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 -$62,765 Planned 4 420 $25,000 $0 $87,000 $0 $8,000 $0 $0 $120,000 Lassen Actual 3 400 $33,000 $0 $87,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 Difference -1 -20 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 -$8,000 $0 $0 $0 Planned 4 2,075 $18,931,438 $1,386,000 $1,251,000 $1,370,000 $140,000 $0 $150,000 $23,228,438 Los Angeles Actual 4 1,875 $19,815,742 $2,650,551 $1,147,599 $452,127 $0 $0 $0 $24,066,019 Difference 0 -200 $884,304 $1,264,551 -$103,401 -$917,873 -$140,000 $0 -$150,000 $837,581 Planned 6 1,715 $349,950 $12,420 $23,000 $18,000 $3,500 $20,607 $5,250 $432,727 Madera Actual 7 1,005 $298,714 $14,212 $16,502 $0 $3,316 $910 $0 $333,654 Difference 1 -710 -$51,236 $1,792 -$6,498 -$18,000 -$184 -$19,697 -$5,250 -$99,073 Planned 6 960 $105,000 $0 $25,000 $487,500 $0 $0 $0 $617,500 Marin Actual 7 166 $100,000 $2,229 $32,293 $343,966 $0 $0 $0 $478,488 Difference 1 -794 -$5,000 $2,229 $7,293 -$143,534 $0 $0 $0 -$139,012 Planned 3 45 $114,250 $43,300 $10,000 $0 $0 $2,856 $0 $170,406 Mariposa Actual 3 48 $114,329 $20,759 $1,000 $0 $0 $2,856 $0 $138,944 Difference 0 3 $79 -$22,541 -$9,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$31,462 Planned 4 780 $55,561 $52,469 $0 $163,440 $0 $13,541 $0 $285,011 Mendocino Actual 4 237 $37,219 $5,209 $17,788 $109,965 $0 $8,449 $0 $178,630 Difference 0 -543 -$18,342 -$47,260 $17,788 -$53,475 $0 -$5,092 $0 -$106,381 Planned 1 45 $768,451 $345,754 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,114,205 Merced Actual 1 51 $833,023 $252,851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,085,874 Difference 0 6 $64,572 -$92,903 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$28,331 Planned 8 262 $78,000 $7,500 $28,500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $114,500 Modoc Actual 5 18 $62,715 $0 $27,000 $150 $27,135 $0 $0 $117,000 Difference -3 -244 -$15,285 -$7,500 -$1,500 -$350 $27,135 $0 $0 $2,500 40 Appendix G (continued) Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by County Fixed Youth Salaries & Services & Professional Assets & Administrative Other Total County Programs Served Benefits Supplies Services CBOs Equipment Overhead Expenditures Expenditures Planned 6 305 $44,000 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,670 $119,670 Mono Actual 3 76 $0 $3,351 $90,610 $0 $0 $0 $0 $93,961 Difference -3 -229 -$44,000 -$31,649 $90,610 $0 $0 $0 -$40,670 -$139,012 Planned 2 1,630 $1,183,398 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,185,898 Monterey Actual 2 1,599 $1,174,908 $0 $82,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,257,384 Difference 0 -31 -$8,490 -$2,500 $82,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,486 Planned 4 175 $313,381 $65,488 $0 $126,676 $0 $0 $0 $505,545 Napa Actual 4 237 $347,472 $71,952 $0 $52,800 $0 $0 $0 $472,224 Difference 0 62 $34,091 $6,464 $0 -$73,876 $0 $0 $0 -$33,321 Planned 8 1,395 $175,000 $0 $109,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $284,000 Nevada Actual 8 1,696 $145,588 $0 $67,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $213,355 Difference 0 301 -$29,412 $0 -$41,233 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$70,645 Planned 3 3,674 $5,752,917 $664,717 $642,426 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,060,060 Orange Actual 2 1,893 $621,022 $9,940 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $630,962 Difference -1 -1,781 -$5,131,895 -$654,777 -$642,426 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$6,429,098 Planned 5 865 $75,000 $20,000 $524,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $619,500 Placer Actual 4 351 $161,763 $14,000 $424,237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 Difference -1 -514 $86,763 -$6,000 -$100,263 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$19,500 Planned 8 262 $97,701 $13,980 $39,416 $9,500 $30,000 $10,297 $117,756 $318,650 Plumas Actual 6 164 $52,078 $1,804 $11,065 $0 $1,383 $5,753 $3,605 $75,688 Difference -2 -98 -$45,623 -$12,176 -$28,351 -$9,500 -$28,617 -$4,544 -$114,151 -$242,962 Planned 1 110 $3,751,971 $1,196,455 $565,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,514,206 Riverside Actual 2 676 $4,308,687 $392,841 $687,828 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,389,356 Difference 1 566 $556,716 -$803,614 $122,048 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$124,850 Planned 4 500 $3,784,231 $261,135 $107,112 $202,888 $0 $0 $0 $4,355,366 Sacramento Actual 4 1,998 $3,887,476 $221,295 $10,000 $450,356 $0 $0 $0 $4,569,127 Difference 0 1,498 $103,245 -$39,840 -$97,112 $247,468 $0 $0 $0 $213,761 Planned 5 234 $36,251 $4,449 $0 $76,300 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 San Benito Actual 3 76 $34,212 $0 $8,950 $15,846 $0 $0 $0 $59,008 Difference -2 -158 -$2,039 -$4,449 $8,950 -$60,454 $0 $0 $0 -$57,992 Planned 2 2,590 $7,864,447 $423,100 $481,595 $0 $0 $876,914 $0 $9,646,056 San Bernardino Actual 2 2,540 $6,566,947 $505,912 $447,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,520,791 Difference 0 -50 -$1,297,500 $82,812 -$33,663 $0 $0 -$876,914 $0 -$2,125,265 Planned 9 1,034 $4,644,547 $1,761,283 $1,475,103 $0 $80,501 $0 $40,000 $8,001,434 San Diego Actual 9 1,465 $4,406,616 $1,782,046 $629,912 $622,010 $63,116 $0 $7,155 $7,510,855 Difference 0 431 -$237,931 $20,763 -$845,191 $622,010 -$17,385 $0 -$32,845 -$490,579 Planned 5 194 $1,031,691 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,171,691 San Francisco Actual 6 142 $787,339 $668 $0 $323,576 $662 $0 $2,809 $1,115,054 Difference 1 -52 -$244,352 $668 -$140,000 $323,576 $662 $0 $2,809 -$56,637 Planned 6 3,315 $2,075,494 $48,461 $9,540 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,133,495 San Joaquin Actual 6 4,855 $2,112,900 $42,909 $17,503 $42,444 $0 $0 $0 $2,215,756 Difference 0 1,540 $37,406 -$5,552 $7,963 $42,444 $0 $0 $0 $82,261 Planned 3 250 $384,592 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $409,592 San Luis Obispo Actual 2 164 $328,162 $47,143 $5,400 $0 $0 $38,071 $0 $418,776 Difference -1 -86 -$56,430 $22,143 $5,400 $0 $0 $38,071 $0 $9,184 Planned 7 4,157 $1,471,880 $13,000 $100,000 $543,336 $200,000 $103,200 $0 $2,431,416 San Mateo Actual 7 3,808 $1,213,684 $16,756 $83,967 $546,070 $0 $103,200 $0 $1,963,677 Difference 0 -349 -$258,196 $3,756 -$16,033 $2,734 -$200,000 $0 $0 -$467,739 Planned 5 1,771 $1,109,480 $26,980 $0 $167,500 $0 $0 $10,000 $1,313,960 Santa Barbara Actual 5 924 $634,622 $18,783 $56,225 $173,425 $0 $0 $0 $883,055 Difference 0 -847 -$474,858 -$8,197 $56,225 $5,925 $0 $0 -$10,000 -$430,905 Planned 2 550 $2,828,551 $57,457 $87,852 $175,380 $0 $15,747 $0 $3,164,987 Santa Clara Actual 2 550 $2,886,669 $10,767 $80,701 $233,616 $0 $16,059 $0 $3,227,812 Difference 0 0 $58,118 -$46,690 -$7,151 $58,236 $0 $312 $0 $62,825 Planned 5 2,366 $329,010 $36,864 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $21,600 $402,474 Santa Cruz Actual 5 746 $341,504 $46,859 $11,108 $0 $0 $0 $0 $399,471 Difference 0 -1,620 $12,494 $9,995 -$3,892 $0 $0 $0 -$21,600 -$3,003 Planned 1 369 $360,885 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $243 $361,128 Shasta Actual 1 607 $362,749 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,749 Difference 0 238 $1,864 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$243 $1,621 Planned 1 15 $117,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 Sierra Actual 1 0 $117,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 Difference 0 -15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Planned 6 515 $0 $0 $113,402 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $115,402 Siskiyou Actual 6 417 $0 $521 $23,932 $111,106 $0 $131 $0 $135,690 Difference 0 -98 $0 $521 -$89,470 $111,106 -$2,000 $131 $0 $20,288 Planned 4 1,209 $0 $0 $13,500 $604,400 $0 $0 $700,000 $1,317,900 Solano Actual 4 1,836 $0 $0 $6,750 $527,512 $0 $0 $286,008 $820,270 Difference 0 627 $0 $0 -$6,750 -$76,888 $0 $0 -$413,992 -$497,630 Planned 10 620 $519,411 $19,002 $21,500 $559,100 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,319,013 Sonoma Actual 8 787 $405,326 $36,341 $0 $603,376 $0 $0 $0 $1,045,043 Difference -2 167 -$114,085 $17,339 -$21,500 $44,276 $0 $0 -$200,000 -$273,970 Planned 1 300 $445,968 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $445,968 Stanislaus Actual 2 482 $484,368 $32,023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $516,391 Difference 1 182 $38,400 $32,023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,423 41 Appendix G (continued) Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by County Fixed Youth Salaries & Services & Professional Assets & Administrative Other Total County Programs Served Benefits Supplies Services CBOs Equipment Overhead Expenditures Expenditures Planned 4 247 $358,080 $5,464 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $373,544 Sutter Actual 4 157 $289,284 $6,417 $0 $0 $0 $1,043 $0 $296,744 Difference 0 -90 -$68,796 $953 -$10,000 $0 $0 $1,043 $0 -$76,800 Planned 1 0 $155,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,160 Tehama Actual 1 0 $134,837 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $134,837 Difference 0 0 -$20,323 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$20,323 Planned 5 302 $92,038 $0 $0 $13,887 $0 $11,045 $0 $116,970 Trinity Actual 1 88 $97,996 $5,645 $0 $0 $0 $13,359 $0 $117,000 Difference -4 -214 $5,958 $5,645 $0 -$13,887 $0 $2,314 $0 $30 Planned 3 318 $1,676,352 $70,863 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,797,215 Tulare Actual 3 132 $1,508,645 $187,154 $9,177 $0 $35,520 $0 $0 $1,740,496 Difference 0 -186 -$167,707 $116,291 -$40,823 $0 $35,520 $0 $0 -$56,719 Planned 1 50 $0 $0 $117,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,500 Tuolumne Actual 1 63 $0 $0 $117,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,500 Difference 0 13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Planned 5 775 $1,943,200 $346,860 $174,000 $177,041 $0 $264,112 $0 $2,905,213 Ventura Actual 5 990 $1,771,315 $350,205 $87,864 $144,133 $3,767 $0 $0 $2,357,284 Difference 0 215 -$171,885 $3,345 -$86,136 -$32,908 $3,767 -$264,112 $0 -$547,929 Planned 4 220 $491,037 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $6,487 $0 $0 $507,524 Yolo Actual 5 727 $501,957 $5,000 $0 $0 $7,798 $0 $0 $514,755 Difference 1 507 $10,920 $0 -$5,000 $0 $1,311 $0 $0 $7,231 Planned 4 765 $204,276 $29,939 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $234,215 Yuba Actual 4 717 $153,956 $6,316 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,272 Difference 0 -48 -$50,320 -$23,623 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$73,943 Planned 242 48,966 $74,709,012 $7,779,634 $8,544,099 $4,838,548 $534,688 $1,779,552 $1,385,272 $99,570,805 All Counties Actual 233 41,392 $67,997,513 $8,124,244 $5,724,583 $5,314,540 $232,369 $701,427 $388,941 $88,483,617 Difference -9 -7,574 -$6,711,499 $344,610 -$2,819,516 $475,992 -$302,319 -$1,078,125 -$996,331 -$11,087,188 42 Appendix H Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by Program Type Fixed Assets Salaries & Services & Professional & Administrative Other Total Program Type Progr ams Benefits Supplies Services CB Os Equipment Overhead Expenditures Expenditures Planned 1 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 After School Services Actual 2 $27,181 $0 $5,040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,221 Difference -1 -$27,181 $0 $9,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$17,221 Aggression Planned 6 $112,898 $82,945 $30,000 $53,041 $0 $19,098 $0 $297,982 Replacement Actual 4 $102,453 $33,873 $0 $37,612 $0 $0 $0 $173,938 Therapy Difference -2 -$10,445 -$49,072 -$30,000 -$15,429 $0 -$19,098 $0 -$124,044 Planned 11 $106,233 $5,942 $80,680 $743,555 $0 $13,406 $0 $949,816 Alcohol and Drug Treatment Actual 7 $31,116 $6,378 $1,403 $534,771 $0 $5,498 $0 $579,166 Difference -4 -$75,117 $436 -$79,277 -$208,784 $0 -$7,908 $0 -$370,650 Planned 1 $0 $0 $0 $3,450 $0 $0 $0 $3,450 Anger Management Counseling Actual 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Difference -1 $0 $0 $0 -$3,450 $0 $0 $0 -$3,450 Planned 12 $25,921,569 $2,362,228 $2,669,426 $350,000 $0 $71,526 $0 $31,374,749 Camp Actual 12 $25,522,945 $3,677,498 $1,994,755 $275,521 $0 $68,387 $0 $31,539,106 Difference 0 -$398,624 $1,315,270 -$674,671 -$74,479 $0 -$3,139 $0 $164,357 Planned 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $60,000 Capital Improvements Actual 2 $0 $50,244 $0 $0 $81,857 $0 $0 $132,101 Difference 1 $0 $50,244 $0 $0 $21,857 $0 $0 $72,101 Planned 3 $87,951 $1,500 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,451 Community Service Actual 2 $94,816 $8,702 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,518 Difference -1 $6,865 $7,202 -$1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,067 Planned 3 $0 $0 $97,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $97,700 Contract Services Actual 4 $0 $0 $62,438 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,438 Difference 1 $0 $0 -$35,262 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$35,262 Planned 7 $1,181,246 $249,593 $654,752 $475,000 $2,000 $4,785 $0 $2,567,376 Day or Evening Treatment Program Actual 7 $1,103,190 $239,805 $208,868 $975,430 $1,658 $695 $0 $2,529,646 Difference 0 -$78,056 -$9,788 -$445,884 $500,430 -$342 -$4,090 $0 -$37,730 Planned 1 $254,917 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,917 Detention Assessment(s) Actual 2 $148,605 $0 $6,108 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,713 Difference 1 -$106,312 $0 -$3,892 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$110,204 Planned 3 $282,088 $51,519 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,564 $352,171 Development of Case Plan Actual 2 $9,478 $1,864 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,342 Difference -1 -$272,610 -$49,655 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$18,564 -$340,829 Planned 9 $926,875 $240,000 $130,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,296,875 Electronic Monitoring Actual 5 $370,908 $22,419 $101,823 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $496,650 Difference -4 -$555,967 -$217,581 -$28,177 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 -$800,225 Planned 5 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $129,188 $0 $0 $134,188 Equipment Actual 5 $0 $4,979 $0 $0 $104,364 $0 $0 $109,343 Difference 0 $0 -$21 $0 $0 -$24,824 $0 $0 -$24,845 Planned 2 $628,218 $22,092 $10,000 $392,888 $0 $0 $0 $1,053,198 Family Counseling Actual 2 $605,902 $16,227 $10,000 $704,044 $0 $0 $0 $1,336,173 Difference 0 -$22,316 -$5,865 $0 $311,156 $0 $0 $0 $282,975 Planned 2 $204,475 $0 $7,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,975 Functional Family Therapy Actual 2 $148,096 $0 $10,018 $0 $0 $173 $0 $158,287 Difference 0 -$56,379 $0 $2,518 $0 $0 $173 $0 -$53,688 Planned 1 $277,517 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,517 Gang Intervention Actual 1 $218,331 $3,768 $0 $0 $0 $22,210 $0 $244,309 Difference 0 -$59,186 -$6,232 $0 $0 $0 $22,210 $0 -$43,208 Gender Specific Planned 4 $64,464 $48,424 $3,135 $110,000 $0 $13,598 $0 $239,621 Programming for Actual 3 $40,567 $32,391 $0 $91,008 $0 $0 $0 $163,966 Boys Difference -1 -$23,897 -$16,033 -$3,135 -$18,992 $0 -$13,598 $0 -$75,655 Gender Specific Planned 4 $176,075 $9,716 $3,135 $53,900 $0 $0 $0 $242,826 Programming for Actual 3 $123,039 $17,074 $0 $30,250 $0 $0 $0 $170,363 Girls Difference -1 -$53,036 $7,358 -$3,135 -$23,650 $0 $0 $0 -$72,463 Planned 2 $0 $0 $4,000 $57,800 $0 $0 $0 $61,800 Group Counseling Actual 3 $2,942 $0 $155 $15,846 $0 $215 $0 $19,158 Difference 1 $2,942 $0 -$3,845 -$41,954 $0 $215 $0 -$42,642 Planned 8 $7,782,355 $555,542 $7,000 $0 $0 $400,090 $0 $8,744,987 Home on Probation Actual 8 $5,265,346 $470,982 $5,000 $0 $0 $800 $0 $5,742,128 Difference 0 -$2,517,009 -$84,560 -$2,000 $0 $0 -$399,290 $0 -$3,002,859 Planned 13 $255,515 $8,101 $856,284 $706,879 $0 $0 $0 $1,826,779 Individual Mental Health Counseling Actual 9 $112,134 $6,194 $505,165 $675,256 $0 $131 $0 $1,298,880 Difference -4 -$143,381 -$1,907 -$351,119 -$31,623 $0 $131 $0 -$527,899 43 Appendix H (continued) Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by Program Type Fixed Assets Salaries & Services & Professional & Administrative Other Total Program Type Programs Benefits Supplies Services CBOs Equipment Overhead Expenditures Expenditures Planned 16 $7,524,102 $369,478 $209,352 $232,420 $0 $478,138 $27,000 $8,840,490 Intensive Probation Supervision Actual 17 $5,347,727 $352,793 $159,881 $233,616 $0 $520,662 $18,365 $6,633,044 Difference 1 -$2,176,375 -$16,685 -$49,471 $1,196 $0 $42,524 -$8,635 -$2,207,446 Planned 1 $0 $0 $168,502 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,502 Job Readiness Training Actual 2 $0 $0 $100,698 $0 $0 $0 $2,809 $103,507 Difference 1 $0 $0 -$67,804 $0 $0 $0 $2,809 -$64,995 Planned 15 $6,852,119 $1,629,862 $207,600 $0 $200,000 $48,888 $121,163 $9,059,632 Juvenile Hall Actual 15 $6,476,634 $1,743,668 $229,059 $0 $37,178 $65,829 $0 $8,552,368 Difference 0 -$375,485 $113,806 $21,459 $0 -$162,822 $16,941 -$121,163 -$507,264 Life/Independent Planned 2 $7,101 $3,049 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,150 Living Skills Actual 4 $13,391 $2,781 $37,883 $150 $0 $0 $0 $54,205 Training/Education Difference 2 $6,290 -$268 -$2,117 $150 $0 $0 $0 $4,055 Planned 2 $0 $0 $2,000 $3,479 $0 $0 $0 $5,479 Mental Health Screening Actual 3 $12,493 $0 $42,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,193 Difference 1 $12,493 $0 $40,700 -$3,479 $0 $0 $0 $49,714 Planned 2 $0 $0 $0 $192,500 $0 $0 $0 $192,500 Mentoring Actual 3 $0 $0 $0 $216,765 $0 $0 $0 $216,765 Difference 1 $0 $0 $0 $24,265 $0 $0 $0 $24,265 Planned 4 $401,225 $0 $5,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $408,225 Other Capacity Building/Maintenance Actual 7 $246,610 $31,299 $0 $0 $0 $407 $37,607 $315,923 Difference 3 -$154,615 $31,299 -$5,000 $0 -$2,000 $407 $37,607 -$92,302 Planned 20 $3,576,201 $285,896 $346,750 $43,200 $0 $233,133 $64,153 $4,549,333 Other Direct Service Actual 16 $3,972,730 $366,931 $280,533 $336,929 $3,767 $8,695 $0 $4,969,585 Difference -4 $396,529 $81,035 -$66,217 $293,729 $3,767 -$224,438 -$64,153 $420,252 Planned 4 $4,823,748 $1,227,255 $669,642 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $7,620,645 Other Placement Actual 3 $4,700,450 $420,130 $687,828 $0 $0 $0 $286,008 $6,094,416 Difference -1 -$123,298 -$807,125 $18,186 $0 $0 $0 -$613,992 -$1,526,229 Planned 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Procurements Actual 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,082 $14,082 Difference 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,082 $14,082 Other Secure/Semi- Planned 4 $6,615,599 $300,500 $481,595 $40,000 $0 $477,624 $0 $7,915,318 Secure Rehab Actual 4 $6,980,876 $331,767 $447,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,760,575 Facility Difference 0 $365,277 $31,267 -$33,663 -$40,000 $0 -$477,624 $0 -$154,743 Planned 3 $4,800 $6,864 $2,500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $14,664 Parenting Education Actual 1 $0 $6,417 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,417 Difference -2 -$4,800 -$447 -$2,500 -$500 $0 $0 $0 -$8,247 Planned 6 $394,695 $12,478 $640,000 $4,500 $0 $6,911 $24,192 $1,082,776 Pro-Social Skills Training Actual 7 $150,133 $1,717 $35,102 $632,974 $1,383 $5,753 $2,168 $829,230 Difference 1 -$244,562 -$10,761 -$604,898 $628,474 $1,383 -$1,158 -$22,024 -$253,546 Planned 2 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 Ranch Actual 3 $16,560 $28,603 $72,746 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,909 Difference 1 $16,560 $28,603 -$17,254 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,909 Planned 10 $2,975,625 $88,194 $85,400 $1,023,000 $141,500 $4,558 $171,600 $4,489,877 Re-Entry of Aftercare Services Actual 9 $3,280,339 $168,833 $39,802 $176,606 $0 $173 $0 $3,665,753 Difference -1 $304,714 $80,639 -$45,598 -$846,394 -$141,500 -$4,385 -$171,600 -$824,124 Planned 4 $0 $0 $40,000 $328,936 $0 $0 $0 $368,936 Recreational Activities Actual 3 $0 $2,449 $0 $145,037 $662 $0 $0 $148,147 Difference -1 $0 $2,449 -$40,000 -$183,899 $662 $0 $0 -$220,789 Planned 1 $0 $0 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,400 Restorative Justice Actual 1 $0 $0 $4,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,950 Difference 0 $0 $0 -$450 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$450 Planned 22 $1,598,131 $157,683 $290,145 $0 $0 $3,566 $18,600 $2,068,125 Risk and/or Needs Assessment Actual 19 $1,391,218 $34,245 $126,695 $0 $0 $1,750 $20,747 $1,574,655 Difference -3 -$206,913 -$123,438 -$163,450 $0 $0 -$1,816 $2,147 -$493,470 Planned 1 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Special Education Services Actual 1 $0 $13,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,250 Difference 0 $0 $13,250 -$20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$6,750 Planned 9 $1,287,048 $3,127 $0 $0 $0 $3,386 $0 $1,293,561 Staff Salaries/Benefits Actual 10 $1,185,408 $3,519 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,188,927 Difference 1 -$101,640 $392 $0 $0 $0 -$3,386 $0 -$104,634 Staff Planned 10 $306,222 $42,646 $15,000 $5,000 $0 $845 $40,000 $409,713 Training/Professional Actual 14 $295,895 $22,923 $41,520 $0 $0 $49 $7,155 $367,542 Development Difference 4 -$10,327 -$19,723 $26,520 -$5,000 $0 -$796 -$32,845 -$42,171 44 Appendix H (continued) Planned and Actual YOBG Expenditures by Program Type Fixed Assets Salaries & Services & Professional & Administrative Other Total Program Type Programs Benefits Supplies Services CBOs Equipment Overhead Expenditures Expenditures Planned 1 $0 $0 $166,243 $0 $0 $0 $0 $166,243 Transitional Living Services/Placement Actual 1 $0 $0 $60,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,476 Difference 0 $0 $0 -$105,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$105,767 Planned 1 $0 $0 $0 $18,500 $0 $0 $0 $18,500 Tutoring Actual 1 $0 $0 $8,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,950 Difference 0 $0 $0 $8,950 -$18,500 $0 $0 $0 -$9,550 Planned 3 $80,000 $0 $479,358 $0 $0 $0 $0 $559,358 Vocational Training Actual 3 $0 $521 $437,055 $232,725 $0 $0 $0 $670,301 Difference 0 -$80,000 $521 -$42,303 $232,725 $0 $0 $0 $110,943 Planned 242 $74,709,012 $7,779,634 $8,544,099 $4,838,548 $534,688 $1,779,552 $1,385,272 $99,570,805 All Program Types Actual 233 $67,997,513 $8,124,244 $5,724,583 $5,314,540 $232,369 $701,427 $388,941 $88,483,617 Difference -9 -$6,711,499 $344,610 -$2,819,516 $475,992 -$302,319 -$1,078,125 -$996,331 -$11,087,188 45 Appendix I County YOBG Allocation Amounts and County Representation in Performance Outcome Study Group YOBG Allocation Performance Outcome Study Group County Amount % Total Initial Exclusions Final % Total Alameda $3,119,238 3.3% 42 4 38 3.3% Alpine $117,122 0.1% 0 0.0% Amador $117,122 0.1% 1 1 0.1% Butte $455,214 0.5% 6 1 5 0.4% Calaveras $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Colusa $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Contra Costa $2,250,703 2.4% 31 3 28 2.4% Del Norte $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% El Dorado $354,335 0.4% 5 5 0.4% Fresno $3,302,254 3.5% 42 42 3.6% Glenn $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Humboldt $221,420 0.2% 3 3 0.3% Imperial $481,356 0.5% 6 6 0.5% Inyo $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Kern $3,137,487 3.4% 40 40 3.4% Kings $451,168 0.5% 6 6 0.5% Lake $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Lassen $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Los Angeles $20,827,399 22.3% 311 55 256 22.1% Madera $481,156 0.5% 6 6 0.5% Marin $583,824 0.6% 7 1 6 0.5% Mariposa $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Mendocino $248,915 0.3% 3 3 0.3% Merced $1,277,082 1.4% 16 16 1.4% Modoc $117,122 0.1% 0 0.0% Mono $117,122 0.1% 0 0.0% Monterey $1,187,138 1.3% 15 15 1.3% Napa $427,825 0.5% 5 5 0.4% Nevada $225,086 0.2% 3 3 0.3% Orange $7,755,785 8.3% 100 1 99 8.5% Placer $666,714 0.7% 9 9 0.8% Plumas $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Riverside $5,424,350 5.8% 71 2 69 5.9% Sacramento $4,087,423 4.4% 52 52 4.5% San Benito $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% San Bernardino $8,819,685 9.4% 113 3 110 9.5% San Diego $7,056,098 7.6% 91 2 89 7.7% San Francisco $1,003,281 1.1% 14 2 12 1.0% San Joaquin $2,069,762 2.2% 27 27 2.3% San Luis Obispo $346,441 0.4% 4 4 0.3% San Mateo $1,879,804 2.0% 24 2 22 1.9% Santa Barbara $975,104 1.0% 13 1 12 1.0% Santa Clara $3,167,712 3.4% 41 3 38 3.3% Santa Cruz $391,147 0.4% 5 5 0.4% Shasta $361,505 0.4% 5 5 0.4% Sierra $117,122 0.1% 0 0.0% Siskiyou $119,306 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Solano $1,305,764 1.4% 18 3 15 1.3% Sonoma $908,345 1.0% 12 12 1.0% Stanislaus $1,215,693 1.3% 16 16 1.4% Sutter $258,169 0.3% 3 3 0.3% Tehama $185,628 0.2% 2 2 0.2% Trinity $117,122 0.1% 2 2 0.2% Tulare $1,799,093 1.9% 23 3 20 1.7% Tuolumne $117,122 0.1% 3 1 2 0.2% Ventura $1,948,616 2.1% 25 4 21 1.8% Yolo $480,574 0.5% 7 2 5 0.4% Yuba $199,509 0.2% 3 3 0.3% Total $93,448,182 100.0% 1,253 93 1,160 100.0% 46