Board of State and Community Corrections

Youth Reinvestment Grant Round 2 Grantees | 2020-2023 Final Evaluation Report December 13, 2023 P age | i. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the dedication of the YRG Round 2 Grantees in continuing to provide vital services to youth during the challenging times of COVID-19. Many of the grantees developed innovative approaches for connecting with youth despite the imposed isolation of the pandemic. We also want to thank the many BSCC staff for their partnership over the course of this grant, including Eddie Escobar (Field Representative, Corrections Planning & Grant Program), Johnny Sanchez (Grant Analyst), and Michael Lee (Research Data Supervisor). Report Submitted to: Eddie Escobar | Field Representative Corrections Planning & Grant Program Board of State and Community Corrections 2590 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95833 Report Developed by: Institute for Social Research Research Team Sacramento State Downtown Shannon Williams, Ph.D. | Executive Director 304 S. Street, 3rd Floor Mary Ann Wong M.A. | Research Specialist Sacramento, CA 95819 Logan Peters | Research Analyst II www.csus.edu/isr YRG Annual Report | 1 Youth Reinvestment Grant Round 2 Awarded Grantees Asian American Recovery Services, HealthRIGHT 360 | The Pacific Islander Voices, Outreach and Transformation (PIVOT) Centinela Youth Services | CYS Restorative Justice Diversion Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. | Luna y Sol Familia Center Community Works | Restorative Justice Diversion Project Creative Build | Invest in Our Youth Flintridge Center | Youth of Promise Diversion Project Interface Children & Family Services | Youth LIFT Partnership Program Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade, Black United Fund | Proud to be Me Trauma-Informed Diversion Initiative Outward Bound Adventures | Environmental Studies Expeditions Diversion Program San Diego Youth Services | TAY Works Sharefest | Youth Leadership Academy Sierra Health Foundation: Center for Health Program Management | Restorative Youth Justice Tarzana Treatment Centers | Youth Empowerment Project The AMAAD Institute | Restoration Outreach and Resiliency Voices for Children | Juvenile Justice Court Appointed Special Advocate Program YRG Annual Report | 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 5 I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Statewide Evaluation Framework .............................................................................................................. 7 YRG Round 2 Grantees ................................................................................................................................ 9 Profile of Youth in YRG Grantee Communities ..................................................................................... 11 II. YRG Grantee Programs & Services ......................................................................................................... 14 Grantee Diversion Programs .................................................................................................................... 14 Youth Program Activities and Services .................................................................................................. 16 Grantee Program Implementation .......................................................................................................... 18 III. Youth Participants in Grantee Programs .............................................................................................. 19 Total Number of Youth Participants ....................................................................................................... 19 Youth Referral Type ................................................................................................................................... 20 Nature of Youth Diversion into Program ............................................................................................... 22 Youth Participant Demographics ............................................................................................................ 23 Description of Youth Participants ........................................................................................................... 24 IV. Youth Participation in Services & Outcomes ....................................................................................... 27 Diversion Program Activities and Services............................................................................................ 27 Statewide Outcomes for Youth ............................................................................................................... 30 YRG Grantees’ Responses to COVID-19 ................................................................................................ 34 V. Summary of YRG Statewide Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 36 Attachment A – Grantee Program Summary ........................................................................................... 38 YRG Annual Report | 3 LIST OF ACRONYMS BSCC California Board of State and Community Corrections CBO Community-based Organization ISR Institute for Social Research LEP Grantee Local Evaluation Plan LER Grantee Local Evaluation Report QPR Grantee Quarterly Progress Report YRG Youth Reinvestment Grant LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES Figure 1 | Youth Reinvestment Grant Statewide Evaluation Logic Model .............................................. 8 Figure 2 | Map of Round 1 Youth Reinvestment Grantees ..................................................................... 10 Figure 3 | 5-Year Trend in Juvenile Arrest Rates, State Average & YRG Grantee Average ............... 12 Figure 4 | Implementation Status of YRG Grantee Diversion Programs .............................................. 18 Figure 5 | Total Youth Enrolled in YRG Grantee Programs ..................................................................... 19 Figure 6 | Percent of Youth Receiving Referral Type ............................................................................... 21 Figure 7 | Nature of Youth Diversion into YRG Grantee Programs ....................................................... 22 Figure 8 | Demographics of Youth Enrolled in YRG Diversion Programs ............................................ 23 Figure 9 | Description of Youth Participants in YRG Diversion Programs ........................................... 25 Figure 10 | Status of Youth Enrollment at the End of Each Grant ......................................................... 28 Table 1 | Summary of YRG Grantees, Round 2 ............................................................................................ 9 Table 2 | Description of Youth Population in Counties with YRG Funded Diversion Projects ......... 11 Table 3 | Ratio of Racial Breakdown of Juvenile Arrests ........................................................................ 13 Table 4 | Types of YRG Grantee Diversion Programs and Grantee Examples .................................... 14 Table 5 | YRG Statewide Evaluation - Grantee Youth Services .............................................................. 16 Table 6 | Total Youth Enrolled in YRG Diversion Programs, by Grantee .............................................. 20 Table 7 | Annual Totals of Youth Participating in YRG Services ............................................................ 27 Table 8 | Status of Grantee Program Youth Participation by Grant Year ............................................ 29 Table 9 | Statewide Youth Outcomes Reported by Grantees ................................................................. 30 Table 10 | Percentage of Youth Completing Diversion Program with Positive Outcomes .............. 31 YRG Annual Report | 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Youth Reinvestment Grant (YRG) Program was established in the 2018 Budget Act (Senate Bill 840, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2018) and the related trailer bill (Assembly Bill 1812, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2018). Aimed at diverting youth from initial or subsequent contact with the juvenile justice system, grantees use approaches that are evidence-based, culturally relevant, trauma- informed, and developmentally appropriate. Round 2 Grantees of the YRG Program include 15 community-based organizations (CBOs) who delivered diversion services. The grantee programs incorporated at least one of the following: educational services, including academic and vocational services; mentoring services; mental health services; or behavioral health services. While the primary goal of this grant program is to avoid initial contact with law enforcement, grant funds could also be used to avoid further interaction with the juvenile justice system for youth who already had an initial contact. YRG Program Round 2 funding represents an investment of $14,540,986 during the three-year grant period of July 2020 to June 2023. The administrator of the grant, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) contracted with the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at California State University, Sacramento to conduct a statewide evaluation of the YRG Program. The evaluation was designed to measure the overall impacts of the YRG Program by using aggregated youth data reported by grantees. While the evaluation findings provide a description of the program services as well as the youth served, the program outcomes were measured differently by each grantee. Taking the evaluation design into account, the following key findings are summarized below. A total of 4,614 youth (first-time entry) were served by the Round 2 YRG Grantees across the three years of the grant. • YRG Funding Targeted High-Need Communities. Round 2 Grants were awarded to local CBOs that target underserved communities with high rates of youth arrests. A significant proportion of youth in these YRG funded communities are Hispanic/Latino or Black/African American. In 2021, 52 percent of youth identified as Hispanic/Latino, followed by six percent of youth identified as Black/African American. • YRG Funding Supported a Wide-Array of Youth Diversion Programs and Services. Local CBOs addressed the unique needs and challenges within the local youth populations with YRG funding. The majority of the funded programs focused on Pre-arrest Diversion (67%) and Community-Led Diversion (60%) programs and services. • YRG Diversion Programming Was Not Fully Implemented Until Year Two. A little over half of the Round 2 Grantees had the necessary staffing in place to implement their programs at the end of the first year of the grant (2021). COVID-19 undoubtedly was a factor for delayed programming during the first year of the grant. • YRG Diversion Programming Targeted At-Promise Youth1. Grantees' youth participation data demonstrate that diversion programming targeted at-promise youth. Fifty one percent of youth received a risk assessment, and of those youth, about a quarter of them (23%) were assessed at Medium or High risk when enrolling in grantee programs. Forty eight 1 At-promise youth is defined as having the same meaning as “at-risk” youth as specified in Assembly Bill 413 (Chapter 800, Statutes of 2019). YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 5 percent of youth participants were Hispanic/Latino and 27 percent were Black/African American. A third (34%) of participants had previous contact with law enforcement (pre/post adjudication or informal contact); 39 percent had no contact and the status of the remaining 27 percent was unknown. The majority of the youth (69%) were participating voluntarily. • YRG Grantees Provided Vital Services to Youth, Especially During the Pandemic. Despite challenges presented by stay-at-home orders during the pandemic, grantees provided youth services throughout the grant cycle. In grant year 22/23, grantees supported youth with Referrals and Linkages to Mental Health (495 youth), Mentoring (1,750 youth), and Counseling (1,149 youth). Other types of services provided were Pro-Social Activities (1,633 youth), Restorative Justice Activities (1,067 youth), and Educational Supports (1,782 youth). • YRG Grantees Reported Positive Statewide Outcomes for Youth. Grantees reported outcomes for those youth who completed their program. On average, the most frequently reported outcomes include having No Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (73%), Positive Youth Development Outcomes (76%), Reduced Assessed Risk Status (53%), and Improved Educational Outcomes (55%). YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 6 I. INTRODUCTION The Youth Reinvestment Grant (YRG) Program was established in the 2018 Budget Act (Senate Bill 840, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2018) and the related trailer bill (Assembly Bill 1812, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2018). Aimed at diverting youth from initial or subsequent contact with the juvenile justice system, grantees use approaches that are evidence-based, culturally relevant, trauma- informed, and developmentally appropriate.2 Round 2 Grantees of the YRG Program include community-based organizations (CBOs) who delivered diversion services. The grantee programs incorporated at least one of the following: educational services, including academic and vocational services; mentoring services; mental health services; or behavioral health services. While the primary goal of this grant program is to avoid initial contact with law enforcement, grant funds could also be used to avoid further interaction with the juvenile justice system for youth who already had an initial contact. YRG Program Round 2 funding represents an investment of $14,540,986 during the three-year grant period of July 2020 to June 2023. Statewide Evaluation Framework The California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) administers the YRG Program and contracted with the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at Sacramento State in September 2019 to develop and implement a statewide evaluation framework for the YRG Program. The goal of the statewide evaluation framework is to account for the diversity of youth diversion programming across grantees within a unified evaluation framework. The statewide framework uses aggregated youth data grantees collected for their local evaluations to understand the statewide impact of YRG programming on youth. The request for proposal stipulated that the statewide evaluation design must rely on aggregated youth data and not collect individual youth data (for reasons of confidentiality) from grantees. Another requirement of the statewide evaluation design was that it should not put significant burden on the grantees in terms of data collection. In addition to the statewide evaluation efforts, the YRG grant agreement required that grantees submit a Local Evaluation Plan (LEP) at the start of the grant outlining how grantees were going to measure and report their individual program, and a Local Evaluation Report (LER) summarizing the findings of their program at the end of the grant period. These local evaluation requirements for YRG Grantees were instituted before ISR was contracted to develop the statewide evaluation. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation Logic Model. The YRG Program logic model is the first component of the statewide framework and represents how YRG funded programming can achieve the goals of the grant program, specifically: preventing youth from having contact with the juvenile justice system; reducing youth recidivism into the juvenile justice system; and reducing racial disparities within the juvenile justice system. Program logic models are visual schematics that help identify how resources and program activities can lead to desired change. The YRG Program Statewide Logic model (Figure 1) synthesizes the various types of youth diversion programs proposed by YRG Grantees, categorizes their core program activities and services, and identifies common outcomes expected from these diversion programs that will lead to the longer-term outcomes identified for the YRG Program. 2 https://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_youthreinvestmentgrant/ YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 7 Figure 1 | Youth Reinvestment Grant Statewide Evaluation Logic Model Statewide Program Logic Model Youth Reinvestment Grant Program Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports. The second component of the statewide evaluation framework was to develop a method for YRG Grantees to collect key metrics related to program implementation and indicators to measure elements of the statewide logic model. ISR designed the Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) for grantees to submit standardized program and youth data in order to provide a statewide-perspective on the YRG program. The QPR provided data about program goals, program and service descriptions, and aggregated quarterly and annual data regarding youth participation, youth demographics and background, and the status of statewide outcomes. The QPR was designed as an Adobe form which enabled grantees to electronically report their project data to the BSCC and allowed for the data to be automatically extracted for analysis. ISR cleaned and analyzed grantee QPR data to provide a summary of program activity across the program since 2020. While most grantees (13 grantees out of 15) submitted 100 percent of their quarterly reports, some grantee QPRs were missing or excluded in the analysis below due to data quality. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 8 YRG Round 2 Grantees The 15 YRG Grantees were selected based upon the five criteria: 1. program need (i.e., target population to be served) 2. type of program services (i.e., trauma informed, developmentally appropriate, integrated with formal justice system or other partnerships) 3. organizational capacity and coordination (i.e., staffing and/or partnerships, coordination with formal justice system agencies) 4. data collection/evaluation (i.e., how data will be collected, maintained, and reported) 5. proposed budget The average award for YRG Grantees was $969,399, with individual grants ranging from $299,863 to $2,000,000. Table 1 below lists the local community-based organization that were selected for the Round 2 YRG awards, the counties they serve, as well as the total grant amount awarded. Table 1 | Summary of YRG Grantees, Round 2 Grantee County Grant Asian American Recovery Services (HealthRIGHT 360) San Mateo/ Santa Clara $317,427 Centinela Youth Services Los Angeles $1,602,942 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc Santa Cruz $1,200,000 Community Works Alameda/ San Francisco $1,923,469 Creative Build Los Angeles $599,655 Flintridge Center Los Angeles $1,081,042 Interface Children & Family Services Ventura $1,143,391 Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade, Black United Fund Los Angeles $1,200,000 Outward Bound Adventures Los Angeles $490,314 San Diego Youth Services San Diego $599,793 Sharefest Los Angeles $600,000 Sierra Health Foundation Sacramento $2,000,000 Tarzana Treatment Centers Los Angeles $899,769 The AMAAD Institute Los Angeles $583,321 Voices for Children San Diego/Riverside $299,863 Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 9 YRG Round 2 funding included 10 counties located across California, with grantees clustered in the more populated Los Angeles County. Figure 2 | Map of Round 2 Youth Reinvestment Grantees City & Counties of CBOs Awarded Youth Reinvestment Grants Round 2 YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 10 Profile of Youth in YRG Grantee Communities The YRG Program targeted underserved communities and jurisdictions with racial or ethnic disparities determined by disproportionately high rates of juvenile arrests. Table 2 below provides the demographic profile of the counties in which Round 2 YRG Grantees provided diversion services. The total youth population (11-17 years) in the YRG Program funded counties was 2,091,318 in 2021. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino youth made up at least 50 percent of the youth populations within the funded YRG counties. Table 2 | Description of Youth Population in Counties with YRG Funded Diversion Projects Youth Population (11-17 years) in 2021 County of YRG Funded Total Projects Population % Black % Hispanic % White Alameda County 133,336 9.7% 32.5% 20.6% Los Angeles County 886,899 6.7% 62.0% 16.2% Riverside County 254,293 5.9% 62.3% 21.6% Sacramento County 150,785 9.6% 32.9% 31.5% San Diego County 283,391 4.1% 46.9% 31.4% San Francisco County 41,867 7.4% 23.8% 25.2% San Mateo County 61,466 1.1% 33.0% 31.3% Santa Clara County 172,380 2.2% 35.3% 21.9% Santa Cruz County 22,311 0.7% 51.6% 39.2% Ventura County 84,590 1.4% 56.2% 31.6% Total Grantee Counties 2,091,318 5.8% 51.8% 22.3% California 3,674,140 4.9% 52.2% 24.9% Source: Census PUMS Microdata 2021 5-Year Estimates. Notes: 1) All Hispanic includes individuals of any race who identify as Hispanic, and 2) Black and White NH includes individuals who identify as that race only and not as Hispanic. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 11 Juvenile Arrest Trends The prevention and reduction of youth contact with the juvenile justice system is the primary goal of the YRG Program. Figure 3 shows the five-year trend in arrest rates involving juveniles (youth between the ages of 11-17) for the state as well as for the average across YRG Grantee counties. The juvenile arrest rate represents the number of arrests made by law enforcement agencies per 100,000 total population. Statewide juvenile arrest rates dropped 41 percent from 2019 to 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and continued to drop in 2021, though arrest rates picked up in 2022. The 10 counties with YRG funded diversion programs have lower overall arrest rates than those of the state. YRG Grantee counties, on average, follow the state trend of dropping in 2020/2021 during the pandemic. Given that the YRG diversion programs were primarily focused on specific communities, it is not expected that county-level arrest rates would reflect the impact from the three years of programming. Figure 3 | 5-Year Trend in Juvenile Arrest Rates per 100,000 youth, State Average & YRG Grantee Average YRG Grantee Counties Have Lower Juvenile Arrest Rates Compared to the State State County Average with YRG Program 1,264 1,175 1,078 1,034 700 708 615 587 527 415 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/arrests. Note: Both 2020 and 2021 are COVID-19 years with stay-home orders. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 12 YRG prioritizes efforts to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in counties with disproportionately high rates of juvenile arrests. Table 3 includes the disparity ratios for racial and ethnic groups for 2019 (pre-grant) and 2022 (the latest arrest data available). The disparity ratio is a method to measure the disproportionality of arrests within a population.3 In the table below, the ratio was calculated by dividing the percent of juveniles who were arrested from a specific racial/ethnic group by the percent that racial/ethnic group makes up within the total population. For example, in 2019, Black/African American youth made up 13 percent of all youth arrests in San Mateo County. However, Black/African American youth only make up 1.1 percent of the youth population in San Mateo County. Therefore, Black/African American youth were arrested in San Mateo County almost twelve times (11.5) more than if arrests were made equitable across the entire population. Cells highlighted in green showed a decrease in the arrest disparity ratios between 2019 and 2022 for YRG counties. Given that the YRG diversion programs were primarily focused on specific communities, it is not expected that county-level arrest rates would reflect the impact from the three years of programming. Table 3 | Ratio of Racial Breakdown of Juvenile Arrests Black/African Location of YRG Funded American Hispanic/Latino White Projects 2019 2022 2019 2022 2019 2022 Alameda County 5.4 5.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.4 Los Angeles County 4.4 3.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 Riverside County 3.6 2.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.8 Sacramento County 4.5 5.2 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.6 San Diego County 4.1 4.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.7 San Francisco County 7.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 San Mateo County 11.5 17.5 1.7 1.6 0.7 0.4 Santa Clara County 3.7 4.8 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.5 Santa Cruz County 6.7 3.7 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.7 Ventura County 4.6 3.0 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.5 Total YRG 4.0 3.9 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 California 4.3 4.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.7 Source: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/arrests 3 https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/racial-and-ethnic-disparity#nlydqf YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 13 II. YRG GRANTEE PROGRAMS & SERVICES YRG Grantees implemented diversion programs designed to meet the specific needs of their youth populations and address community needs and resources. Therefore, the 15 diversion programs included in the YRG statewide evaluation represented a diverse array of services and approaches. Grantee Diversion Programs Grantees were asked to characterize their diversion programming from a list of categories identified in the BSCC grant application. Table 4 below lists the types of youth diversion programming of YRG grantees and the percentage of grantees that implement each type of program. It should be noted that grantees could select more than one programming type for their grant. For example, more than two-thirds (67%) of YRG grantees characterized their program as a Pre-Arrest program and 60 percent indicated that their program was Community-Led Diversion Program. Examples of how Round 2 YRG grantees implemented these types of diversion programming in their communities are also included below. Table 4 | Types of YRG Round 2 Grantee Diversion Programs and Examples Diversion Program Example of Grantee Program Pre-Arrest Diversion | 67% of programs Pre- arrest programs serve youth before they have Ventura County's Interface Children & Family contact with the juvenile justice system. Services partnered with the Oxnard Police Justification for youth enrollment in these Department, the Ventura County Probation Agency, programs may come from school related and the Oxnard school districts to implement an indicators such as truancy or poor performance. alternative process to prevent at-promise youth from initial and/or further contact with the juvenile justice system. Community-Led Diversion | 60% of programs Community-led diversion programs place Santa Cruz County's Luna y Sol Familia Center emphasis on alternatives to the juvenile justice expanded the Luna Evening Centers probation-led system which include informal supports, such as service delivery through the addition of the family, friends, teachers, or others in a youth’s community-based services and programming life, in addition to formal supports (service offered at a separate community-based center and providers). Community-led diversion programs can at community pop-up sites. take place pre- or post-adjudication. Probation Diversion | 60% of programs Probation diversion programs serve youth who In Sacramento County, Sierra Health Foundation's have been exposed to the juvenile justice system Restorative Youth Justice program partnered with or are displaying risk behavior and are referred the Sacramento County Probation Department to services through their local probation department. refer youth to the program and provide probation Services vary per program but typically include risk diversion services. Diversion services were or needs assessment, service plan construction designed to address gaps in mentoring, case and referral to internal or external services. management capacity, and trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy while complementing existing efforts to reduce community violence. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 14 Diversion Program Example of Grantee Program Restorative Justice Diversion | 47% of programs Restorative justice diversion programs serve all Los Angeles County’s Centinela Youth Services parties involved in a particular offense. More offered two restorative justice programs to specifically these programs provide services that mediate conflicts between the youth's family or develop mediation between actor and victim. those they have harmed: the Families Able to Resolve Situations program and the Victim Offender Restitution program. Court Diversion | 40% of programs Programs that select court diversion in their grant San Diego County's Voices for Children funded the proposals receive referrals from the court system Juvenile Justice Court Appointed Special Advocate and provide services in place of formal court (CASA) program. CASA volunteers supported their processing and or support youth with their court youth's academic achievement, helped them mandated activities. access mental health and other trauma-informed care, and connected them with prosocial activities. They ensure that youth involved in the justice system complete probation requirements and prevent at-promise youth from initial contact with the juvenile justice system. Service Referral Diversion | 33% of programs Service referral diversion programs connect youth In San Francisco and San Mateo County, youth in with services. The connection to services may be HealthRIGHT360’s Pacific Islander Voices, within the project they are referred or to external Outreach, and Transformation (PIVOT) program services depending on the youth’s needs. received at least two case management sessions. Direct referrals to an outside provider for services were made and included a warm hand-off to another provider and navigation which provided follow-up services to help youth and/or their families navigate barriers to accessing services. Police Diversion | 27% of programs Police diversion programs either maintain Los Angeles County’s Flintridge Center partnered partnerships with local police to facilitate a referral with the Pasadena Police Department to provide pathway, or the police in that area collaborate in formal police diversion services through the Youth service provision, usually through a police- of Promise Diversion Program Expansion project. sponsored community organization. The project formalizes a referral pathway between partner organizations to connect high-risk and justice-involved youth to services. Community Assessment Diversion | 13% of programs Community assessment diversion programs San Diego County’s Youth Services worked with include initial risk or needs assessments which are the County’s Community Assessment Team (CAT) collaborative or include multiple voices. to identify recruits for the TAY Works program. The CAT diversion program is an intervention program for families with children ages 6-18 who are at risk of entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system. Other | 27% of programs The category consists of all other types of Sharefest’s Youth Leadership Academy expanded diversion programming. their credit recovery program to six continuation high schools in the South/Harbor areas of Los Angeles. The program was designed to help youth earn credits to get back on track for graduation. Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023 YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 15 Youth Program Activities and Services The YRG Program is intended to support evidence-based, trauma-informed, culturally relevant and developmentally appropriate diversion options at various points of entry to the juvenile justice system. Grantees incorporated a variety of youth activities in their program services. For the purposes of the statewide evaluation, youth services are grouped into three main service categories: Assessment and Case Management Services; Positive Youth Development; and Restorative Justice. Ninety three percent of grantees included at least one assessment and case management type of service. More than 90 percent provided at least one service to promote positive youth development, which includes mentoring, educational support, vocational training/placement, pro-social activities, and group/individual counseling. Two-thirds of the grantee programs (67%) implemented restorative justice-type services. Table 5 | YRG Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantee Youth Services YRG Statewide Evaluation | Round 2 Grantee Youth Services Assessment & Case Management Services Referral/Linkages to Mental Health Services | 80% of programs Connecting youth specifically to mental health services outside of the project, either directly through a partnership or indirectly by providing youth with resources. This may include individual counseling, group therapy, and psychiatry. Risk/Needs Assessments | 73% of programs Any routine project process involving assessing youth, assigning risk levels or other individualized plans, and monitoring progress over time with repeated testing, which is an important aspect of case management. Referral/Linkages to Other Services | 60% of programs Connecting youth to other services outside of the project using “warm-hand offs” or other active modes of connecting youth that go beyond simply providing a list of available resources. Referral/Linkages to Drug and Alcohol Services | 47% of programs Connecting youth to services outside the project that specifically address substance use/drug and alcohol issues. These may include inpatient or outpatient rehab, sessions with a substance use counselor, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, or other groups or individual services. Positive Youth Development Pro-Social Activities | 87% of programs Services that encourage positive relationships with others and society as a whole. These can be recreational, artistic, social, educational, and more. Any activity that provides youth with alternatives to risky behavior (and does not fit into the other categories) can be grouped here. Mentoring | 80% of programs Formation of an ongoing relationship with youth in which the mentor becomes a confidant, role model, teacher, friend, etc. and supports a path of positive development for the youth. Educational Support | 73% of programs Any services aimed to help youth progress in school, including tutoring, academic advising, study hall, supplemental classes, etc. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 16 YRG Statewide Evaluation | Round 2 Grantee Youth Services Vocational Training/Placement | 60% of programs Any service aimed to help prepare youth for the workforce. These services can focus on general job skills like constructing a resume and interviewing, soft skills such as communication, computer literacy and professionalism, trainings and internships for specific jobs, or any other kind of employment support for youth. Group/Individual Counseling | 40% of programs Counseling provided by a professional as part of the project, not by referral to any outside agency. Restorative Justice Restorative Justice Activities | 67% of programs Services that address the harmful cost of offense to victims and/or society as a whole. Most focus on the impact of actions on others (rather than the fact that rules were broken), building empathy, and bringing affected parties together to build consensus and community. Common restorative justice services include community service hours, restitution payment, mediation with victims, and writing letters of apology or repentance. Other | 47% of programs A service that falls outside of the categories above and is an intentional and impactful component of the project’s design. Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020 - 2023 Examples of YRG Diversion Program Youth Services Assessment and Case Management HealthRIGHT 360’s PIVOT provided enrolled youth with at least two strengths-based case management sessions from bicultural staff. These sessions could lead to external service referrals including linkage, hand off to service provider, or navigation related services which aid families in overcoming barriers to accessing services. Positive Youth Development Outward Bound Adventures local evaluation reported positive impacts on self-mastery and attitudes toward learning and mindset. Participants developed positive relationships through participation in group activities, such as camping trips and environmental restoration projects. They also received support and guidance from mentors and community members throughout enrollment. Restorative Justice Activities Sierra Health Foundation’s Restorative Youth Justice Program created a space for the person harmed, responsible youth, and community members to come together to build an accountability plan for the responsible youth. The Restorative Community Conferencing process included four stages: enrollment, preparation, conference, and plan completion. Once the responsible youth completed the plan, the District Attorney would not proceed with filing charges. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 17 Grantee Program Implementation Grantees were asked to provide a quarterly status update of program implementation in their QPRs. Figure 4 below displays the status of Round 2 Grantee program implementation at the end of each YRG grant year. A number of issues impacted YRG Program implementation. In the first year of the grant, grantees were still forming their partnerships and determining staffing. The COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home mandates impacted programs in terms of recruiting youth participants and providing alternatives to in-person activities (more about the impact of COVID-19 is discussed below). By the end of the second grant year (GY 21/22), about three-quarters of the grantees reported that their diversion programs were fully implemented. Figure 4 | Implementation Status of YRG Round 2 Grantee Diversion Programs Percent of Round 2 Grantees with Completed Project Components at the End of each YRG Program Year GY 20/21 GY 21/22 GY 22/23 Staffing/Volunteers 60% 73% 93% Partnerships 47% 73% 93% Enrollment Process 60% 73% 87% Evidence-Based Practices 47% 67% 87% Quality Assurance 27% 47% 73% Data Collection/Evaluation 27% 53% 67% Training 47% 60% 87% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020 – 2023 Figure 4 above shows the percent of YRG Grantees who reported their program components were fully in place/completed and supporting project goals. Note that at the end of the first grant year (GY 20/21) less than two thirds (60%) of the programs had the required staffing/volunteers but by the end of the third year, almost all (93%) had their staffing/volunteers in place. Implementation of partnerships (formal relationships between agencies, schools, and/or community goals that supported program goals) was at 47 percent by the end of GY 20/21. The program components of the Identification, Outreach and Enrollment Process, Evidence-based Practices (using strategies known to achieve positive youth outcomes), Quality Assurance (methods to ensure youth services are being delivered as intended/fidelity), Data Collection/Evaluation (systematic and ongoing data collection to measure participation and evaluation measures), and Training took longer to fully implement. The majority of grantees achieved full implementation of the project components by the end of the grant period. It is important to note that the program components Data Collection and Evaluation and Quality Assurance were never fully completed/implemented by some of the grantees (67% of grantees) and lagged behind the other program components in terms of implementation. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 18 III. YOUTH PARTICIPANTS IN GRANTEE PROGRAMS In addition to the status of their program implementation, grantees submitted aggregated data regarding their youth participants for the YRG statewide evaluation. Grantees were asked to track the total number of youth who enrolled and exited a program during the course of the year. Youth who entered and exited a program multiple times, were recorded separately during each grant year. However, it is not known if the same youth participants were enrolled across multiple grant years because individual-level data were not collected as stipulated by the grant requirements. Below, the total number of youth participants enrolled annually in the YRG Round 2 funded programs are noted. Demographic detail for youth represents all three years of participant data. Total Number of Youth Participants Grantees reported the number of youth Figure 5 | Total Enrollment in YRG Round 2 Programs who participated in their programs. For the first time entry across the grant Total Youth Enrolled years, the total number of youth was in YRG Round 2 Grantee Programs 4,614, with participation increasing annually throughout the grant cycle. In 1,885 the first year of the grant (GY 20/21), 1,679 many programs were navigating COVID- 19 while still in the implementation phase and enrolled 1,050 youth. In the second year (GY 21/22) enrollment 1,050 reached a height of 1,885 youth. Finally, the number of new youth participants saw an 11 percent decrease in enrollment from the second to the third year (GY 22/23 = 1,679 youth). Each grantee’s enrollment numbers across the grant are presented in Table 6 below. Note that making comparisons GY 20/21 GY 21/22 GY 22/23 across grantees is difficult; grantees Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023 received a range of funding and the Note: These are youth who entered the program for the first- different types of programs had varying time only (first entry). levels of capacity. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 19 Table 6 | Total Youth Enrolled in YRG Diversion Programs, by Grantee Grantees GY 20/21 GY 21/22 GY 22/23 Total Asian American Recovery Services 5 44 61 110 Centinela Youth Services 194 551 176 921 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz Co., Inc 50 51 114 215 Community Works 47 22 12 81 Creative Build 112 158 35 305 Flintridge Center 197 160 109 466 Interface Children & Family Services 0 148 245 393 LA Brotherhood Crusade, Black United Fund 147 0 2 149 Outward Bound Adventures 59 156 120 335 San Diego Youth Services 40 37 34 111 Sharefest 122 327 385 834 Sierra Health Foundation 0 80 208 288 Tarzana Treatment Centers 23 34 135 192 The AMAAD Institute 40 90 32 162 Voices for Children 14 27 11 52 All YRG Grantees 1,050 1,885 1,679 4,614 Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023. Notes: 1) Includes youth who entered the program for the first-time (first entry). Centinela Youth Services (CYS) and Sharefest Youth Leadership Academy (YLA) served the largest number of youth (921 and 834) across the three years of the grant. CYS partnered with multiple law enforcement agencies providing referral training and YLS served youth in Los Angeles County continuation schools. CYS youth participated voluntarily while those enrolled in YLA programming were either identified for services by school administration, law enforcement or self-referral. On the other hand, Voices for Children’s Juvenile Justice Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) served the least amount of youth at 52 total entries. Youth enrolled in the CASA program were eligible if judged to have committed a nonviolent infraction. CASA used a one-to-one mentor for each individual youth participant. Pairs spent about 10 to 15 hours on court advocacy, probation requirement aid, and individualized guidance per month. Youth Referral Type A required component of the YRG funded programs was a clear referral plan and process that ensures participant confidentiality, as well as a commitment to avoid net-widening (i.e., enrolling youth into a diversion program if their needs could have been met at an even lower level of intervention). Grantees reported the referral type for each youth enrolled into their program. Referral types in the YRG diversion programs included: • Probation: referral to project by a probation department as part of or in lieu of probation. • Court: youth mandated to participate in project by a judge in lieu of detention or other penalization by the justice system. • Community Organization: referral to project by a community organization, such as a youth/teen center, recreation club, church, activism group, etc. • School/Truancy: referral to project by their school for reasons such as truancy or disruptive behavior. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 20 • Police/Law Enforcement: referral to project by a law enforcement officer, usually following contact and potentially arrest or citation. • Restorative Justice: Youth referral as a part of a restorative justice process. • Service Referral: Youth referred by an organization or agency that has an ongoing referral- based relationship with your project, which may be mutual or one-way. • Self or Family Referral: Youth came to project on their own accord, or as some kind of informal agreement within their family/caregivers (without law enforcement, school, or government involvement). • Outreach: Rather than being referred to project, youth was identified during outreach efforts, which may include school and community events, contacting at-promise youth or families, and advertisements or other public postings. • Other: any other types of referrals. Figure 6 below includes the percentage of program referrals for youth participating across the entire grant period. Half (50%) of youth referrals were related to School/Truancy, in which participants were referred by their school for reasons such as truancy or disruptive behavior. A quarter of youth were referred by community organizations (9%), outreach (7%), self or family (5%), or by another service providing organization that maintains a referral pathway with a given project (service referral, 4%). A total of 23 percent of youth were referred by the justice system, either by Police/Law Enforcement (20%), Probation (2%), or through the Courts (1%). Figure 6 | Percent of Youth by Program Referral Type Youth Referrals into YRG Round 2 Grantee Programs School/Truancy 50% Police/ Law Enforcement 20% Community Organization 9% Outreach 7% Self or Family Referral 5% Service Referral 4% Probation 2% Justice System Referral Restorative Justice 2% Non-Justice Referral Other 1% Court 1% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023. Note: Lighter color indicates referral from the justice system. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 21 Nature of Youth Diversion into Program YRG Round 2 Grantees reported the nature of diversion for youth enrolling in their program, as well as if their participation was mandated or voluntary. A total of nine percent of youth were diverted as a part of the formal judicial process (6% for pre-adjudication and 3% post-adjudication). About two-fifths of youth (39%) were reported to have had no previous contact with law enforcement, but may be at a high risk for law enforcement involvement, for example, youth with poor academic performance or high absenteeism. A quarter (25%) had informal contact with law enforcement only. Similarly, just over two-thirds (69%) participated in the diversion program voluntarily. Figure 7 | Nature of Youth Diversion into YRG Round 2 Grantee Programs Nature of Youth Diversion into YRG Round 2 Grantee Programs POINT OF YOUTH DIVERSION No contact with law enforcement 39% Informal contact with law enforcement 25% Pre-adjudication 6% Post-adjudication 3% Unknown 27% YOUTH PARTICIPATION STATUS Voluntary 69% Mandated 27% Unknown 4% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023 YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 22 Youth Participant Demographics YRG Round 2 Grantees reported the aggregated demographics of youth who enrolled in their programs. Figure 8 shows youth enrolled in diversion programs across the three years of the grant. Age & Gender. Three quarters (74%) of the youth participants were 13-17 years old, and about 10 percent were 12 years old or younger. Only nine percent were older than 17 years. Almost two- thirds (61%) of the participants were female. Race & Ethnicity. Overall, the majority of youth enrolled in the diversion program come from ethnic and racial groups that have disproportionate contact with the juvenile justice system. Almost half of the youth (48%) identify as Hispanic or Latino with another 27 percent reported as Black/African American. Figure 8 | Demographics of Youth Enrolled in YRG Round 2 Diversion Programs Youth Demographics in Grantee Diversion Programs AGE GROUPS 12 or Younger 10% 13 - 17 74% 18 - 24 9% Unknown/Decline to state 7% GENDER Male 31% Female 61% Other 8% RACE & ETHNCITY Hispanic/Latino 48% Black/African American 27% White 6% Other/Multi Ethnic 4% Asian 2% American Indian/Alaska Native <1% Unknown/Decline to state 12% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023 YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 23 Description of Youth Participants Grantees were asked to report the status of youth enrolling in their programs for several key domains to understand the backgrounds of the population being served. Figure 9 below provides the status of youth entering programs across the three years of the grant. Education Status. The majority of youth are enrolled in school (85%), with most of these youth attending high school. Three percent of the youth were not students, either because they had graduated or dropped out of school. Employment Status. The largest percentage of youth (46%) were students who were not seeking employment. The other seven percent were seeking employment but were not employed (these youth could also be students). Six percent reported being employed. It is important to note that there was a large proportion of youth (41%) that did not have employment data. Housing Status. Just over half of the youth participants (54%) were living with their parents at the time of their enrollment into grantee programs. Four percent (4%) were living with relatives other than their parents and three percent (3%) were living in other situations which includes out-of-home care through child welfare/probation, living doubled up/couch surfing, living independently, or experiencing homelessness. Unfortunately, 40 percent of the youth’s housing status was unknown or not collected during the reporting period. Assessed Risk Status. Grantees were recommended but not required to assess risk status of youth participants with a standardized testing instrument. Half (51% or 2,873) of youth received a risk assessment at entry. Examples of the types of assessments used by grantees included the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Assessment and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Twenty three percent of assessed youth received a risk assessment of High or Medium. It is important to make a distinction between entry risk status assessments and risk/needs assessments for service. For example, some grantees assessed risk status at entry and again at different time periods to determine an individualized case management or service plan. Assessed risk status and the outcome reduced risk assessed risk status, reflects the assessment conducted at enrollment. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 24 Figure 9 | Description of Youth Participants in YRG Round 2 Diversion Programs Description of Youth Participants EDUCATION STATUS Enrolled in School 85% Not Enrolled in School 3% Unknown/Did not collect 12% EMPLOYMENT STATUS Student, not looking for employment 46% Not employed, looking for employment 7% Employed 6% Unknown/Did not collect 41% HOUSING STATUS Living with parent/s 54% Living with relatives (not in foster care) 4% Other 3% Unknown/Did not collect 40% ASSESSED RISK STATUS Low 28% Medium 14% High 9% Not Assessessed/Other 49% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023 YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 25 Examples of YRG Round 2 Diversion Program Risk Assessments Community Works used the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment (CANS) and the Adult Needs and Strengths Assessment (ANSA). The CANS is a multipurpose tool developed to support care planning and level of care decision- making, to facilitate quality improvement initiatives, and to allow for the monitoring of outcomes of services. It assesses youth’s functioning, youth’s strengths, acculturation, caregiver strengths and needs, youth’s behavioral health needs, and youth’s risk behaviors. Centinela Youth Services (CYS) used the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). It is a risk/needs assessment and a case management tool combined into one convenient system. The YLS is a valid and reliable risk instrument that assesses the risk for recidivism by measuring 42 risk/need factors over the following eight domains: prior and current offenses, family circumstances/parenting, education/employment, peer relations, substance use, leisure/recreation, personality/behavior, and attitudes/orientation. Sierra Health Foundation (SHF) used the Building Resilience Against Violent Extremism (BRAVE) assessment. BRAVE is a standardized measure of risk and protective factors to assess young people’s resilience that includes attention to the role of cultural identity in resilience, as well as youth’s likelihood of gang involvement. Voices for Children (VFC) used the San Diego Risk and Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC). The assessment consists of 60 items in six conceptual categories. The six categories are education, delinquency, family and peer relations, substance use, and individual factors. Each category is comprised of five protective factors and five risk factors. The SDRRC also includes additional protective factors and risk factors that are not included in the resiliency score, but they may be used to tailor an individual’s supervision. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 26 IV. YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN SERVICES & OUTCOMES Diversion Program Activities and Services Round 2 Grantees reported an unduplicated total of youth who received their program services at any point during the grant year. Youth could receive more than one service and therefore may be counted under multiple types of services. The number and percent of youth receiving each diversion program service statewide are presented in Table 7. In the last year of the grant, the type of program services reaching the majority of youth statewide were Risk/Needs Assessments (91%), followed by, Educational Support (86%), Mentoring (84%), and Pro-Social Activities (79%). Table 7 | Annual Totals of Youth Participating in YRG Round 2 Services GY 20/21 GY 21/22 GY 22/23 Total Youth Participants 1,109 2,417 2,073 Risk/Needs Assessments 550 (50%) 1,559 (63%) 1,878 (91%) Referral/Linkages to Other 231 (21%) 948 (38%) 1,122 (54%) Services Referral/Linkages to Mental 148 (13%) 407 (16%) 495 (24%) Health Services Referral/Linkages to Drug and 61 (6%) 203 (8%) 216 (10%) Alcohol Services Positive Youth Development Educational Support 536 (48%) 1,507 (61%) 1,782 (86%) Mentoring 486 (44%) 1,531 (62%) 1,750 (84%) Pro-Social Activities 587 (53%) 1,259 (51%) 1,633 (79%) Group/Individual Counseling 248 (22%) 898 (36%) 1,149 (55%) Vocational Training/Placement 112 (10%) 510 (21%) 1,043 (50%) Restorative Justice Restorative Justice Activities 309 (28%) 867 (35%) 1,067 (51%) Other 212 (19%) 1,017 (41%) 974 (47%) Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023. Note: This table includes all youth who entered multiple time and received multiple services. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 27 Youth Completing Program & Exits To account for the variation in the types of diversion programs and youth services offered statewide, grantees were asked to identify a minimum level of participation that would serve as a benchmark for “successful completion of services” specific to their program. This grantee-unique criterion was then used to define a minimum amount of time, the number of sessions, or other measures of program participation that youth would be expected to complete in order to reasonably gain benefits from the grantee program activities. For example, youth expectations could include “10 mentor sessions”, “one school year” or “six counseling meetings." Only those youth who met this minimum level of participation were to be included in the reporting of outcomes. Status of Youth at End of Grant Year Round 2 Grantees reported the enrollment status of youth participants at the end of each grant year, including those who met the minimum amount of participation. Programs continued to enroll more youth at the end of the grant cycle, which impacted the percentage of youth exiting because they did not have time to complete the services. Grantees reported in the final year of the grant GY22/23, that 35 percent of youth exited their programs without meeting the minimum level of participation. Reasons included dropping out, losing contact, or being arrested. Of these, a total of 6 (<1%) of youth exited the program because they were arrested and/or detained in GY 22/23. Across the three years of the grant, 3,129 youth were reported as exited, with a total of 1,035 youth (33%) leaving programming without meeting their program’s completion criteria. Figure 10 | Status of Round 2 Youth Program Enrollment at the End of Each Grant Year Youth Program Enrollment Status at the End of Grant Year Completed Still enrolled Other exit GY 22/23 55% 10% 35% GY 21/22 28% 63% 9% GY 20/21 24% 69% 7% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020 - 2023 Across the three years of the grant, youth meeting their specific program's completion criteria at time of exit totaled 2,094 statewide. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 28 Table 8 | Status of Grantee Program Youth Participation by Grant Year GY 20/21 GY 21/22 GY 22/23 Total % % Still Total % Still Total % Still Grantees Enrolled Comp. Enrolled Enrolled % Comp. Enrolled Enrolled % Comp. Enrolled Asian American Recovery Services 5 - 100% 44 100% - 61 54% 43% Centinela Youth Services 194 16% 81% 551 13% 84% 176 97% - Community Action Board of Santa Cruz Co, Inc 50 30% 42% 51 27% - 114 77% - Community Works 47 57% - 22 100% - 12 67% - Creative Build 112 27% 73% 158 100% - 35 - 43% Flintridge Center 197 36% 58% 160 8% 88% 109 13% 55% Interface Children & Family Services 0 - - 148 22% 21% 245 44% - Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade 147 - 100% 0 - - 2 - 100% Outward Bound Adventures 59 - 100% 156 - 100% 120 50% 50% San Diego Youth Services 40 15% 48% 37 35% 49% 34 38% - Sharefest 122 50% 50% 327 58% 34% 385 52% - Sierra Health Foundation 0 - - 80 - 95% 208 71% - Tarzana Treatment Centers 23 4% 87% 34 44% 50% 135 36% 24% The AMAAD Institute 40 63% 38% 90 100% - 32 99% - Voices for Children 14 7% 93% 27 33% 52% 11 45% 55% Total 1,050 1,885 1,679 Note: This table includes first time entries only. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 29 Statewide Outcomes for Youth Round 2 Grantees were asked to report their measured outcomes for those youth who exited ‘successfully’ with at least a minimum level of participation (n = 2,094). Standardized youth outcomes were identified in the statewide evaluation for the YRG diversion programs. Grantees reported only those outcomes related specifically to their youth services; most grantees measured and reported several youth outcomes, but were not expected to measure/report on all statewide outcomes. Table 9 below lists the YRG Statewide Outcomes and the percent of Round 2 Grantees who reported measuring the outcome for their diversion programs. Note that grantees determined the specific indicators/methods for how they measured these outcomes for those youth who exited the diversion program with the minimum level of participation (see examples below). Table 9 | Statewide Youth Outcomes Reported by Round 2 Grantees YRG Statewide Diversion Outcomes Reported in QPR Positive Youth Development Outcomes | 80% of Grantees Examples include completion of project’s services in this area, new enrollment/participation in pro-social or recreational activities (such as sports, social groups, the arts), self-reported attitudes, or improvement in development measured in another tangible way by the project. No Contact with the Juvenile Justice System | 80% of Grantees Youth did not report any contact with the juvenile justice system during program participation. This includes without further processing if their diversion was formal, or without any processing if they had been diverted before initial contact. Improved Mental Health Status | 80% of Grantees Improved mental health as determined by a qualified mental health professional and/or a standardized measurement device or based upon receiving formal treatment/support. Improved Educational Outcomes | 80% of Grantees Examples include an improvement in grades, better attendance, enrolling in school when youth previously were not, successful participation in educational support or mentoring, etc. Reduced Assessed Risk Status | 73% of Grantees Youth risk status was reduced as determination by a standardized assessment tool and/or by a mental health or juvenile justice professional. Positive Restorative Justice Outcomes | 67% of Grantees Examples include paying restitution, completing community service hours, writing a letter of apology, completing mediation with a victim of their actions, demonstrating remorse approved by a judge or other legal professional, etc. Improved Vocational Outcomes | 67% of Grantees Examples include obtaining employment, success at work (e.g., promotion, award), enrollment/completion in vocational training, etc. Improved Substance Use Status | 60% of Grantees Examples include successful completion of a treatment program, a verified decrease or complete cessation process. Use, or improvement on a standardized substance use assessment, the opinion of a qualified professional, active enrollment and participation in support or treatment programs, etc. Improved Housing Status | 47% of Grantees Examples include an improvement from homeless to housed, from couch surfing/doubled up to being a rent-paying member on a lease, leaving Foster Care or other out-of-home care to a more permanent situation, etc. Other | 20% of Grantees Examples include increased cultural knowledge, completed probation requirements and access to trauma informed services. Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023 YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 30 Youth Exiting Program with Statewide Diversion Outcomes Round 2 Grantees reported outcomes for the total number of youth who completed their program within the grant year. Outcomes were not reported for youth who were still enrolled in the diversion programs or who exited without program completion. Table 10 shows the total number of youth per grant year who successfully completed the program and the percent of youth who exited with positive outcomes. Grantees only reported outcomes related to their program services and were measured. Youth could also be reported across multiple outcome categories. The most common outcomes reported for youth exiting programs in 22/23 were No Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (86%) and Positive Youth Development Outcomes (79%). About two thirds (63%) of youth had Improved Educational Outcomes and 40 percent had Reduced Risk Status. Table 10 | Percentage of Youth Completing Diversion Program with Positive Outcomes Youth Participants Exiting GY GY GY Overall with Positive Outcomes 20/21 21/22 22/23 269 670 941 1,880 No Contact with the Juvenile 26% 73% 86% 73% Justice System Positive Youth Development 41% 87% 79% 76% Outcomes Improved Educational Outcomes 19% 59% 63% 55% Reduced Assessed Risk Status 20% 86% 40% 53% Improved Mental Health Status 22% 28% 38% 32% Positive Restorative Justice 26% 45% 25% 32% Outcomes Improved Vocational Outcomes 9% 29% 51% 37% Improved Housing Status 4% 7% 8% 7% Improved Substance Use Status 4% 8% 14% 10% Other4 0% 3% 1% 2% Source: YRG Grantee Quarterly Progress Reports, 2020-2023. Note: Completed youth outcomes reported for first-time youth exit. 4 Other outcomes for grantees include: include increased cultural knowledge, completed probation requirements and access to trauma informed services. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 31 Grantees identified their indicators and instruments used to measure their statewide outcomes. The statewide evaluation was designed to meet the requirement of reduced data collection burden for grantees, and therefore grantees could use their local evaluation plans to fulfill the statewide reporting requirements. As a result, there is variation among grantees in terms of how their reported statewide outcomes were measured. Examples of how grantees measured outcomes are included below. Examples of How Statewide Outcomes Were Measured in Round 2 Grantee Local Evaluation Reports Positive Youth Development Outcomes • In Santa Cruz County, 69% (79 out of 115) youth who received services at Luna y Sol Familia Center had improvements in overall wellbeing. • In Los Angeles County, 100% of youth enrolled in Tarzana Treatment Center's Youth Empowerment Project demonstrated improved moral reasoning and concern for social rules. • In Los Angeles County, 94% of youth enrolled in the Sharefest program increased resiliency, power and autonomy. • In Sacramento County, 65% of youth in Sierra Health Foundations program reported feeling supported and understood by people in their community at the end of the program (up from 43% at the beginning). • In Los Angeles County, 86% of youth in the Flintridge Centers Youth of Promise Diversion Program Expansion (YOPDPE) project demonstrated positive youth development outcomes. • In Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, mentees reported a significant boost in self-confidence as evident in their increased willingness to share ideas and take on leadership roles within the program. In addition, mentees demonstrated enhanced communication skills, both verbally and in written form, that resulted in more effective interactions with mentors and peers. No Contact with the Juvenile Justice System • In Los Angeles County, 65% of Black and Latinx LGBTQ+ youth in Project R.O.A.R. reduced their contact with the juvenile justice system after participating in the program. • In San Diego County, 56% (14 out of 25) of youth in the Voices for Children project successfully completed probation or had their charges dismissed. • In Santa Cruz County, 85% of diversion and prevention youth in Luna y Sol's program had no further contact with the juvenile justice system as measured by juvenile probation data. • In Los Angeles County, recidivism rates for youth in the Brotherhood Crusade program decreased from 93% to 0% in the first three months based on official probation records. • In Los Angeles County, 37 out of 37 (100%) of participating high-risk youth in the Brotherhood Crusade’s Proud To Be Me program demonstrated reduced delinquent tendencies based on the Youth Services Eligibility Tool – R assessment. • In Ventura County's Interface Children & Family Services program, 52% of Tier 3 referrals from Oxnard Police Department accepted services in lieu of citation and 82% of those youth successfully had their citations removed. Reduced Assessed Risk Status • In Los Angeles County, 57% of youth who began their Centinela Youth Service’s program with a Tier II categorization of “moderate or high risk” were assessed as being in a lower risk category at program completion. • In San Diego County, Voices for Children reviewed their pre- and post-risk-assessment scores and found that many youth exit the program with a sustained or decreased risk score as a result of being matched with a court-appointed special advocate. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 32 Improved Educational Outcomes • In Los Angeles County, 100% (47 out of 47) of the high-risk youth enrolled in Brotherhood Crusade's Proud to Be Me program graduated or advanced to the next academic level on time, despite 50% of youth not being on track to graduate on time prior to enrolling. • In Los Angeles County, youth in the Outward Bound Adventures program demonstrated an overall increase of 4% in attitudes toward high school, with female students demonstrating a 5% improvement compared to males (2:1 ratio). Improved Mental Health Status • In Los Angeles County, in Project R.O.A.R., 65% of enrolled youth reported improved behavioral and mental health outcomes following participation. • In Santa Cruz County, 50% (N = 104) of students reported improved mental health outcomes after participating in Luna y Sol's program. Positive Restorative Justice Outcomes • In Los Angeles County, 76% of eligible youth participated in Centinela Youth Service's restorative justice programs in Year 1 and Year 2. • In Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, 95% of harmed persons/surrogates agreed that Community Works restorative justice process provided them with a sense of justice and 100% of harmed persons/surrogates reported feeling empowered after participating. Improved Vocational Outcomes • In Los Angeles County, Outward Bound Adventures provided 180 youth with professional mentoring and valuable paid work experiences in different natural resource fields, such as fish, wildlife, forest, and conservation. • In San Diego County, 60% of youth in the TAY Works program expressed “complete confidence” or “much confidence” in their ability to start work after completing the workshop series. • In Los Angeles County, 77% of youth enrolled in the Sharefest Youth Leadership Academy program removed college and career barriers. Improved Substance Use Status • In San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, alcohol use in PIVOT enrolled youth decreased from 26% to 14% at the end of the program. Their marijuana use decreased from 26% to 16% at the end of the program. • In Los Angeles County, 69% of youth in Tarzana Treatments program reported that the treatment has helped with their substance use, 75% of youth reported that the treatment has improved their overall substance use, and 70% of youth reported they did not consume any substances during the 6-month treatment period. Improved Housing Status • In Santa Cruz County, 19% of youth/families in Luna y Sol’s program showed improvement in housing status. • In Sacramento County, all of Sierra Health Foundation restorative justice program sites reported connecting families to resources such as housing and food. Eleven percent of youth and families received more than one referral. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 33 Other • In San Francisco and Alameda Counties, 100% of youth who responded to Community Works (CW) post- conference evaluation survey indicated that participating in the Restorative Justice Diversion (RJD) program was a positive experience and 90% would recommend this process to other youth who have caused harm. • In Ventura County, 93% of youth and their families in Interface Children & Family Services programs reported that the services provided met their needs. Furthermore, 60% of those youth participated in a journaling project with their case manager and 100% of those youth said that they learned something valuable and found what they learned to be helpful in life situations. The 2020-2021 fiscal year began only three months after stay-at-home orders in California, which resulted in drastic changes in the way organizations operate. As such, the section below focused on the successes and challenges that highlighted both how the pandemic hampered YRG grantees’ ability to deliver their programs as well as the innovative ways they were able to adapt programming in a new reality. YRG Round 2 Grantees Responses to COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic occurred as planning and funding of YRG Round 2 programs were still forming. The pandemic had severe impacts across the state with mandatory stay-at-home orders, school and business closures, and the inability to use public space or conduct in-person programming. As a fund intended to support positive youth engagement, the pandemic severely hampered YRG grantees’ ability to deliver their programs. More than half of grantees described the following challenges in relation to the pandemic. Delayed Program Activities. YRG grantees described how the pandemic created significant barriers to their programming, which resulted in delays. Grantees highlighted how key partners closed operations or went remote, which imposed significant barriers to delivering services. Many counties were under “shelter in place” protocols which delayed in-person activities. Challenges Meeting Original Grant Goals. Despite some project activities occurring on schedule, many grantees expressed challenges meeting the goals stated in their original scopes of work. Community Works set out to reduce recidivism rates for youth who complete restorative justice program requirements: The evaluation was originally designed to incorporate pre- and post-surveys for participants, allowing the research team to measure program impact. However, due primarily to the COVID-19 pandemic and issues with communication around survey administration, most participants did not complete the sequence of surveys as initially planned. For instance, out of 30 participants who completed the pre-survey, only one managed to complete both the pre- and post-survey. Consequently, our ability to address whether the program impacted participants is limited in light of these circumstances. Barriers to Youth Engagement. Although grantees generally adapted their programs to be virtual or hybrid throughout the pandemic, grantees noted substantial challenges in engaging with YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 34 youth. Grantees described the changing landscape of the pandemic, feelings of uncertainty, and concerns around safety combined with fatigue with virtual approaches (with most schools being exclusively online). In addition, inequitable access to technology and mental health problems caused by or exacerbated by the pandemic were also identified as barriers to engagement. Taken together, these challenges highlight how the pandemic contributed to delays in activities and posed challenges in meeting goals and engaging youth after project activities started. Overall, grantee responses highlight the ways the pandemic served as a severe impediment to service delivery. While the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly affected YRG grantees’ ability to deliver programs, QPR responses highlighted innovative ways grantees adapted their programs to the pandemic. The top two modifications to programs related to the pandemic were: 1) program redesign and 2) delivering services virtually. Program Redesign. Throughout the pandemic, YRG grantees implemented several modifications such as redesigning services and providing them virtually. Grantees also reported implementing new services to best address the current needs of their communities. The Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade points out that issues associated with COVID-19 were pre-existing and exacerbated by, instead of resulting from, the pandemic. In response, Brotherhood Crusade: Prudently and diligently modified our outreach and recruitment strategies, transitioned our programming and engagement to virtual platforms, modified and increased our supportive services practices, established an emergency relief fund for our participants that has provided cash, technology and necessary supplies to up to 30 families per week, hosted community support giveaway events, and utilized our community support efforts to facilitate outreach, recruitment, enrollment and engagement. Similarly, Creative Build included a curriculum education on COVID-19 that explains: How it spreads, how to take precautions, hand washing and mask wearing. Most of the group sessions were held outside, in parks or parking lots where chairs could be placed at a distance from one another. Delivering Services Virtually. Nearly all organizations developed online resources and transitioned to virtual meetings via Zoom or telephone to maintain engagement with youth and families. For example, the first two cohorts of HealthRIGHT 360’s PIVOT Program received 10 weeks of Transforming Our Attitudes (TOA – Samoan for “brave warrior”) youth development curriculum entirely over Zoom. The curriculum addressed topics such as identity family problem/solving, emotional health, anger, social connections, substance use, and self-care, in addition to case management sessions and culturally relevant extracurricular activities. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 35 V. SUMMARY OF YRG STATEWIDE EVALUATION FINDINGS Round 2 of the Youth Reinvestment Grant Program funded 15 local CBOs from July 2020 to June 2023, and served 4,614 youth (first-time entry) with diversion programs. During the first year of the YRG grant period, COVID-19 impacted all grantee programs. However, most grantees were able to implement program changes to allow activities and services to be delivered to youth virtually. The statewide evaluation was designed to use aggregated youth data reported by grantees. While the evaluation findings provide a description of the program services as well as the youth served, the program outcomes were measured differently by each grantee. By the end of the grant cycle, the program intended to prevent contact with the juvenile justice system (either first time or reentry). The key findings from the statewide evaluation are summarized below. YRG Round 2 Funding Targeted High-Need Communities. Round 2 of the YRG Program funded CBOs to provide youth diversion services in targeted underserved communities that represent 57 percent of the state’s youth population. A significant proportion of youth in these funded counties are Hispanic/Latino or Black/African American. In 2021, 52 percent of youth identified as Hispanic/Latino and six percent of youth identified as Black/African American. YRG Funding Supported a Wide-Array of Youth Diversion Programs and Services Statewide. CBOs delivered their diversion programs in their communities. These CBOs addressed the unique needs and challenges within the local youth populations. Most programs were characterized as Pre-arrest Diversion (67% of programs), Community-Led Diversion (60%), Probation Diversion (60%), and Restorative Justice Diversion (47%). Within these program models, the most common types of youth services provided included Risk/Needs Assessments, Referrals/Linkages to Mental Health, Drug, and Alcohol Services, Pro-Social Activities, Mentoring, Educational Support, Counseling, Vocational Training, and Restorative Justice Activities. YRG Diversion Programming Was Not Fully Implemented Until Year Three. Sixty percent of grantees had the staffing in place to implement their programs at the end of the first year of the grant, and implementing programs requires significant time. COVID-19 during the first year of the grant also accounted for some of the delays in program implementation. Most grantees had key program components in place by the end of the third grant year. The program area that lagged most among the grant cycle was Data Collection/Evaluation, with 67 percent of the grantees reporting that these activities were established by the end of the grant cycle, followed by Quality Assurance at 73 percent. YRG Diversion Programming Targeted At-Promise Youth. Grantee reported youth participation data that demonstrate diversion programming targeted at- promise youth. Twenty three percent of the youth participants assessed entered YRG programs with Medium or High-Risk levels. YRG program also served youth who have disproportionate arrest rates within the grantee counties; half of the youth participants (48%) statewide were Hispanic/Latino and 27 percent were Black/African American. A third (34%) of program participants had previous contact with law enforcement (pre/post-adjudication or informal contact); 39 percent had no contact and the status of the remaining 27 percent was unknown. The majority of the youth (69%) were participating in the YRG program voluntarily. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 36 YRG Grantees Provided Vital Services to Youth, and Especially During the Pandemic. Despite challenges presented by stay-at-home orders during the pandemic, grantees reported providing youth services throughout the grant cycle. In the final year of the grant (GY22/23), grantees supported youth with Referrals/Linkages to Mental Health (495 youth), Mentoring (1,750 youth) and Counseling (1,149 youth). Other types of services provided were Pro-Social Activities (1,633 youth), Restorative Justice Activities (1,067 youth), and Educational Supports (1,782 youth). YRG Grantees Reported Positive Statewide Outcomes for Youth. Grantees reported positive outcomes for those youth completing their programs. Overall, the most frequently reported statewide outcomes for youth include having No Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (73%), Positive Youth Development Outcomes (76%), Reduced Assessed Risk Status (53%), and Improved Educational Outcomes (55%). Note that grantees only measured outcomes related to their program services. The percentages above represent an average across the three years for first time exits. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 37 ATTACHMENT A – GRANTEE PROGRAM SUMMARY Grantee Program Summary HealthRIGHT 360 | The HealthRIGHT provided Pacific Islander middle and high school students in Pacific Islander Voices, San Francisco and San Mateo counties with trauma-informed and culturally Outreach and responsive behavioral health services to prevent future involvement in the Transformation (PIVOT) juvenile justice system through the Pacific Islander Voices, Outreach, and Transformation (PIVOT) program. PIVOT served as a diversion project, one where programming provided primary prevention services as opposed to tertiary prevention services. Centinela Youth Centinela Youth Services (CYS) has delivered effective trauma-informed, Services | CYS culturally competent, developmentally appropriate intervention, diversion, and Restorative Justice intensive case management services. CYS utilized funds to increase delivery Diversion of its restorative justice diversion services focused on ensuring access to pre- arrest diversion services and supports for referred male and female youth between the ages of 9-18 who live in twelve, high needs Target Areas in Los Angeles County. Community Action The goal of Luna y Sol was to provide a trauma-informed, culturally, and Board of Santa Cruz developmentally responsive community model of care that would prevent and County | Luna y Sol divert youth from contact or further involvement with the juvenile justice Familia Center system. The program’s primary target population was male Latinx youth ages 12-17 who live in Santa Cruz’s South County and are at risk of justice system involvement or are actively in a diversion program with the Santa Cruz County Probation Department. Community Works | Community Works (CW) seeks to address and mitigate the impacts of Restorative Justice detention on low-income communities of color. CW provides restorative Diversion Project justice services for those located in San Francisco and Alameda Counties. Following the receipt of a referral, the team at CW initiates the Restorative Community Conferencing (RCC) process. The RCC process includes four stages: enrollment, preparation, conference, and plan completion. The RCC process from start to finish takes an average of six months to complete. Creative Build | Invest in Creative Build engages youth in Compton Unified School District, providing Our Youth participants with ten weeks of mentorship which facilitates completion of a personal plan, life skills, and job training. The services aim to improve participant’s future orientation, as well as educational and vocational and outcomes. Flintridge Center | Youth Flintridge established a partnership with Los Angeles County and the of Promise Diversion Pasadena Police Department to expand its existing Youth of Promise Project program (YOP), a traditionally community-led diversion program, to include formal pre-arrest and police diversion services. Following the successful implementation of this project, the expansion of YOP was designed to replicate this formalized diversion “pathway” with a service referral diversion program model. The project formalizes a referral pathway between partner organizations, connecting high-risk and justice-involved youth to diversion services. Interface Children and The LIFT partnership is a collaborative project between Interface, Oxnard Family Services | Youth Police Department, Ventura County Probation Agency, and the Oxnard school LIFT Partnership districts to implement an alternative citation process to divert youth from Program initial and/or further juvenile justice involvement. Services were designed to target 10–18-year-old at promise, primarily Latino youth in Oxnard YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 38 Los Angeles Proud to be Me is a regional strategy that is purposed to prevent 10-17 year Brotherhood Crusade, old Los Angeles County Service Planning Area 6 (with emphasis on Compton, Black United Fund | Inglewood, South Los Angeles and Lynwood) male and female youth, 14-17 Proud to be Me year old Pomona young men of color and 18 or older SPA 6 young adults who Trauma-Informed are under continuing juvenile court jurisdiction (all of whom are collectively at risk (“High-Risk Youth”) because they present with 75% or more of the Diversion Initiative predictive characteristic risk factors that cause young people to enter or become negatively involved with the juvenile justice system) from initial or further negative contact with law enforcement. Outward Bound Outward Bound Adventures provided at-promise youth and their families with Adventures | a teach me to camp program, environmental studies, conflict resolution Environmental Studies practice, paid work and learning experiences, mentoring and wraparound Expeditions Diversion services. The programming aimed to improve attitudes toward learning, Program school, society and also bolster communal and self- mastery and environmental stewardship. San Diego Youth The TAY Works program provided work readiness training to six cohorts of Services | TAY Works youth participants between November 2020 and July 2023. Each of the TAY Works cohorts participated in 16 skill-building workshops and had the opportunity to receive a paid on-the-job internship with a local business. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the original design of the TAY Works program and SDYS had to shift from a plan to provide in-person workshops to moving all workshops online for its initial cohorts. Sharefest | Youth Sharefest’s Youth Leadership Academy (YLA) provides academic and social Leadership Academy support for approximately 300-400 at-risk youth annually, ages 14 – 18 years old in Continuation High Schools in the South/Harbor areas of Los Angeles. YRG funds expand existing services by adding: 1) Case management to provide intake assessment, individual program planning, family engagement and linkage to additional services; 2) Expanded mentoring capacity; and 3) Expansion to a 5th Continuation School. Sierra Health The Restorative Youth Justice (RYJ) program, managed by The Center at Foundation | Sierra Health Foundation (The Center) and funded by the Youth Reinvestment Restorative Youth Grant program through the California Board of State and Community Justice Corrections, was designed to divert young men of color, particularly Black/African American, ages 10–17 who were at risk for juvenile justice system involvement to community-based services. The program was implemented by trusted community-based organizations (CBOs) with culturally relevant expertise in eight Sacramento-area neighborhoods that experience high rates of juvenile arrest and racial disparity on several indicators. Tarzana Treatment The Youth Empowerment Project (YEP) is a diversion program that aims to Center | Youth help low-income youth ages 12-18 in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles Empowerment Project County who are at risk of entering the juvenile justice system for the first time or a subsequent contact. In like manner, YEP will address the gap in diversion programs for primarily Latino youth in the San Fernando Valley. YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 39 Arming Minorities The AMAAD facilitates youth diversion activities for the identified target Against Addiction and population (Black and Latinx LGBTQ+ Youth age 13-24 whom exhibit behavior Disease | Restoration that place them at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system). As Outreach and Resiliency a boutique entity, the organization’s mainstay activities include peer-based essential support services to connect a broad range of coordinated HIV and Substance Use Disorder (SUD) prevention, care, and treatment resources. AMAAD’s services include strength-based one-on-one counseling sessions, personalized resiliency planning, recovery management services, support groups, leadership development, transitional housing, HIV service navigation, and prison/jail reentry counseling, and follow-up. Project R.O.A.R. sought to address the critical issues related to the need to de-stigmatize the concept of mental health and substance use disorder and other behavioral health issues. Voices for Children | VFC recruits, trains, and supervises Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Juvenile Justice Court volunteers who advocate on behalf of youth who have committed minor, Appointed Special nonviolent offenses and are involved in, or at risk of involvement in, the Advocate Program juvenile justice system. JJ CASA volunteers are assigned to the case of a single youth and spend an average of 10-15 hours a month visiting their youth, supporting their academic achievement, helping them access mental health and other trauma-informed services, and connecting them with prosocial activities. Through court advocacy and individualized guidance, CASAs ensure that justice-involved youth complete probation requirements thereby reducing recidivism and prevent at-promise youth from initial contact with the juvenile justice system. Source: Local Evaluation Report (LER) from Grantees YRG Program Statewide Evaluation – Round 2 Grantees | 40