Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 08051997 - P2A-B
F&HS - 05 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS6E"` ..-A Contra FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Costa County DATE: July 28,1997 SUBJECT: PREPARATION OF THE 1997 CHILDREN'S REPORT CARD SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)S BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT the 1997 Children's Report Card. 2. EXPRESS the Board's deep appreciation for the dedication and commitment of the members of the Executive Committee of the Policy Forum and, in particular, Sara Hoffman and her staff in the County Administrator's Office for obtaining the data, organizing the data, preparing the format and providing the leadership which has resulted in the first Children's Report Card for Contra Costa County. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator to schedule and plan a phone-in Town Hall meeting in the fall of 1997 for the Family and Human Services Committee which will allow the community to become better acquainted with the Children's Report Card, ask questions about it, and learn more about what the community can do to improve the indicators which have been identified to measure progress toward the five identified community outcomes. 4. REFER the Children's Report Card to the Countywide Youth Commission, the Family & Children's Services Advisory Committee, Mental Health Commission, Substance Abuse Advisory Board, Public & Environmental Health Advisory Board, and other appropriate advisory bodies identified by the members of the Executive Committee of the Policy Forum for their comments and information, urging them to make the Children's Report Card available as broadly as possible in the community. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR COM ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON ---August-fir 199 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER The Board approved the recommendations as set forth above. In the course of discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that the item also be referred to the Business Alliance Group. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT II 1 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: _NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CQ County Administrator ATTESTED August 5,_ 1997 Policy Forum Executive Committee (Via Sara Hoffman) PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Executive Director, CCTV M382 (10/88) BY ,DEPUTY ,v .y F&HS - 05 5. DIRECT the County Administrator to ask the Public Information Committee to work with the media (both print and electronic) in an effort to get major media attention directed to the Children's Report Card so the community is aware of the Report Card and can learn ways to assist in improving the indicators which are used to measure progress toward the five identified community outcomes. 6. DIRECT the Executive Committee of the Policy Forum to formulate strategies for approaching private corporations and/or foundations to seek funding for additional printings of the Children's Report Card so that it can be made available as broadly as possible, and report their conclusions and recommendations to the 1998 Family and Human Services Committee and for this purpose REFER this subject to the 1998 Family and Human Services Committee, removing it as a referral to the 1997 Family and Human Services Committee. 7. DIRECT the County Administrator to forward a copy of the Children's Report Card to members of this County's Congressional and Legislative delegations for their information. 8. DIRECT the County Administrator to forward a copy of the Children's Report Card to members of the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference, the Public Managers' Association, the Police Chiefs' Association, the Superintendent of Schools and the superintendent of each school district in the County, seeking their comments and recommendations. 9. If and as funding is identified for the production of additional copies of the Children's Report Card, DISTRIBUTE copies to involved County departments, the offices of members of the Board of Supervisors, community-based organizations and other individuals and organizations who would be interested in the Children's Report Card. 10. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to schedule future updating of the Children's Report Card on a calendar year basis, rather than on a fiscal year basis, if that proves to be more workable because of the schedule for the preparation of the County Budget and Children and Family Services Budget. BACKGROUND: On February 4, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation from our Committee that a Children's Report Card be incorporated into the 1997-98 Budget. On July 28, 1997, our Committee met with the County Administrator and Sara Hoffman from his office. Mr. Batchelor reviewed the Children's Report Card with our Committee. He noted that the Report Card provides a snapshot of what is happening in the community at a point in time. It is not intended to be a record of what County government is or is not doing. Mr. Batchelor noted that in some cases it is difficult to determine the significance of the data which is presented. Does, for instance, an increase in arrest of juveniles for violent felonies indicate that the commission of violent felonies is increasing or that law enforcement agencies are better staffed to address juvenile crime? The same questions can be raised about increases (or decreases) in arrests of juveniles for drug crimes. However, in general, the Report Card provides a very valuable point in time measurement of -2- F&HS - 05 what is happening in this County. It is staffs intent to update the statistics each year to show progress or lack of progress in achieving the identified community outcomes. This type of report card is one of few documents like this being produced by local government in California. Our Committee is extremely pleased with this product and with the baseline of important information it establishes. We know that the data will be refined, expanded and revised in the future. However, we believe that the Report Card can be a vehicle for helping the Board of Supervisors and other policy makers identify problem areas where we should be devoting more time, attention and resources. We believe that this information is so important that we should mount a major campaign to bring this information to the attention of the general public, other elected officials and interested organizations. We have, therefore, outlined the above recommendations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. -3- d t� } I_ r , } t i' a f! r Y � r -72 7772 VIMOM k j! t Y � t - r- G rl_ �M t - 3 r 53 3 Prepared.by a„ the County Administrator's Office in coRjunction with the Children and Families Policy Forum for - the Family and Human services Committee, Contra Costa County board ®$ Supervisors } f f r i �r The Contra Costa Community: } The 1997 Contra Costa County Children's Report Card was created to help our community understand the needs i of our children and to help build community commitment to meet those needs. It is a local "snapshot" of the status of our children: how healthy they are; how well they are doing in school; the security of their family lives; and the safety of their communities. The Children's Report Card serves as a benchmark to measure the relative success of our efforts to improve conditions for all children. We hope that it will support those already working for change and inspire many more to join together in an expanded constituency for children. , Government alone cannot, and should not, be solely : responsible for the well being of our children. It should be the concern of everyone of us. i' There are a significant number of children who face many V2, economic and social challenges; however, there are also many children in the community for whom life is very good. This Report Card is intended to help community members, child advocates, policy makers and others L ke informed choices with regard to what we can do vidually and collectively to support children and ilies. cerely, k DeSaulnier ir, Board of Supervisorsir, Family & Human Services Committee ' �Y ,m i I r_ i- Table of Contents Introduction Page 2 , Contra Costa County Overview Page 4 Children Ready for and Succeeding in School Page 7 Immunization Levels of Toddlers Page 8 Homelessness Among Children Page 10 High School Youth Staying in Sehool Page 12 . High School Seniors Ready for College Page 14 Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive . Adulthood Page 17 Births to Adolescent Girls Page 18 „ Juvenile Drug Arrests Page 20 ` Juvenile Alcohol Arrests and Underage DUI Offenders Page 22 JuvenilesCommitting Violent Crimes Page 24 s Families That Are Economically Self-Sufficient Page 27X. Median Family Incomes and Unemployment Page 28 Free and Reduced Price Lunches Page 30 Child Care Availability and Affordability Page 32 ,f Families That Are Safe, Stable and Nurturing Page 35 ` Births to Mothers with Timely Prenatal Care Page 36 Child Abuse Reports Page 38 Children in Foster Care Page 40 . Communities That Are Safe and Provide High Quality of Life for Children and Families Page 43 4 1 Injuries to Children and Youth Page 44 Sudden Deaths of Children and Youth Page 46 Firearm Assaults and Homicides Page 48 --- - -- Alcohol-Related Traffic Injuries and Fatalities Page 50 4 w. 4; C. 1 FEe Cost n children will reach adulthood having d a safe, healthy, nurturing child hem to be responsible, contributing members munity. n statement of the ContraCosta County Children and ilies Policy Forum,January 1997 Contra Costa's Children and Families Policy Forum, comprised of community residents and representatives from County agencies, elected officials, community-based organizations, law enforcement and schools,was established in 1996 to foster and promote family- and community-centered, collaborative strategies that respond to the needs of children and families. The goals of the Policy Forum are summed up in the following five community outcomes: Children ready for and succeeding in school Children and youth healthy and preparing for productive adulthood. Families that are economically self-sufficient. Families that are safe, stable and nurturing. Communities that are safe and provide a high quality of life for children and families. The 1997 Children's Report Card provides a broad overview of child well-being from birth to adulthood in key areas of life as community outcomes. Under each represented by the five outcome, specific indicators are listed that represent behavioral data trends that either enhance or impede achievement of the — outcomes. The indicators presented in this report card will be Page 2 €s updated annually, serving as benchmarks of how well our society ` is providing for the needs of its children and youth. P 9 Y I There are many limitations to the data that follows. There were a rF number of areas of great interest to members of the Children and Families Policy Forum for which sound, countywide data was simply unavailable. Of primary concern, there was very limited data available on positive measures of child and youth well-being. As a result, most of the indicators focus on the presence of negative z behavioral markers. We are hopeful that data on more positive 1 indicators will be available for inclusion in future report cards.P t In addition, because the availability of datt varies dramatically, this report card does not consistently provide data for any given year. For each indicator, data is provided for the most recent year available. In addition, historical and statewide data is included i- where available. Finally, while the goal of this report card is to provide evidence of concrete outcomes, due to lack of availabe outcome data, it was necessary to use proxy measures in a number of cases. For example, there is no clear data on actual levels of juvenile drug use. This report card uses juvenile drug arrests as a proxy j measure. It is important to note, however, that the rate of juvenile drug arrests is influenced, not only by levels of drug use among youth, but also by law enforcement practices, funding availability w: and a number of other factors. This limitation applies to other measures included in this report card as well. The Count Administrator's Office would like to ' � y acknowledge the contributions of the Outcomes Task Force, the Executive Committee and the many other members of the Children and Families Policy Forum who provided information and feedback during the development of this report card. In addition, staff from a number of State of California and Contra Costa County programs, as well as community agencies, provided critical data for this report. ------ z�= Pae 3 9 i;. :, . .. r: :.._.... i f , i Contra Costa County Overview k located northeast of San Francisco, is Contra Costa County ' on the north by the bounded on the west by San Pablo Bay, Car uinez Straits anCounty dominated by Mt. Diablo, a of the highest encompasses . M peaks in the Bay Area. Contra Costa Y 460,980 acres of land. Hills divide the County into three distinct regions. With its access t to a major waterwayportion has an industrial, service ,the western p and retail economic base. The central section is rapidly developing o §4. into a major commercial and financial center. The eastern p _ der oing a substantial transformation from a rural, the County is unde to a suburban area. agricultural area population of all Contra Costa County has the ninth1997,Contraest pCosta County California counties. As of Janu ry had an estimated population of 879,206• and youth ages 18 and under account for approximately Childrenpopulation. The number of children 27 percent of Contra Costa's pop d outh in the County has increased from 211,845 in 1990 to an y 237,035 in 1997. Consburg, whichtra Costa's largest urban population centers are the cities of Concord, Richmond, Antioch, Walnut Creek and o itt ximately 45 percent f the County's together account for appro population. Contra Costa also has a large population living in p a roximately 20 percent of unincorporated areas of the County; pp all residents live in the unincorporated County. _ is 67 percent White, 13 percent Latino, Contra Costa's population g percent African-American and 11 percent Asian/pacific Islanmerican. less than 1 percent Native A Page 4 i i i �A Among the counties with the highest average levels of individual l j wealth, Contra Costa's average per capita income in 1994 was i reported to be$28,685, the fourth highest among the 58 California counties. Median personal income in 1996 was $33,006, the highest among all counties. Despite these overall measures ofy. economic well being, there are areas of extreme poverty in the County. . i Contra Costa has 18 public school districts, ranging from small s elementary districts to large unified school districts. In addition, Contra Costa is home to a number of independent elementary and high schools, three community colleges;-one four year college and two universities. isem.,say 1 Ban PwWo&W Contra I Costa ' a © County a � , jt, Oakland Francisco i -ry Sources:California Department of Finance, Demographics Unit,Population Projections;City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1997;California Department of Finance,Race/Ethnic Estimates by County;U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Califomia Per Capita Income by County. ABAG Projections of 1996 [^ Page 5 `T iY 4-: I t ;t yti i CHILI) REN is i• REA1)Y FOAN [) SUCC I I r 1-4 SCHOOL r ABODE FGHUKL M NOPQ RSTU VWXVZ - k I � 5 _ i f. Immunization Levels of Toddlers :X .t illness Infectious diseases continue to contribute substa�sikllyot ulatons and death in the United States, particularly fora p P such as infants and young children. Immunization of infants Tetanus) toddlers against Polio, DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis and MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) is an childhood important preventative measure that can ensure a healthier nd a healthier community. Description of Indicator: The State of California and many counties recently began collecting data on the immunization children of two-year olds by examining immunization re Data is collected on the percentage of upon kindergarten entry. x two-year old children fully immunized against Polio, DPT and whi h Y Contra Costa ccorrue ty mmun immunization data.eveloping an m The asystem should be will provide _ countywide by 1999• County hs status of Contra Costa: As shown, Contra Costa evels of toddleas. surpassed the State of California in immunization In addition,the County appears to have increased the share of two- year olds who are fully immunized between 1993 and 1996 more substantially than the State as a whole. Despite this improvement, over one-third of all children in Contra Costa are still not fully immunized by age two. K� S S _ Page 8 is I [y>. ' Proportion of Kindergartners ` Fully Immunized at 24 Months 100% : ■California ❑Contra Costa E 75% r 6 62.0% 5.1% 55.6% 57.3% 50% E: 25%, fs; rx t r 0% : 1993 1996 11h, Source:CA Department of Health Services,Immunization Branch, 1993 Kindergarten EXPANDED Retrospective Surrey and 1996 Kindergarten EXPANDED Retrospective Survey. f I i Page 9 I I I Homelessness Among Children Homelessness is a problem throughout California. Contrary to common perception that the homeless are primarily single adults, the homeless population includes large numbers of children. Description of Indicator: Available data on the number of homeless children are limited to rough estimates. These are minimum figures which only include 'the number of homeless children whose parent(s) received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Homeless Assistance. The numbers are a yearly - - count and do not indicate the number of homeless on a given night ' or the length of each homeless episode. Homelessness among children is measured by the number of persons under the age of 18 who were living.on the streets or in temporary accommodations at any point during the fiscal year and who received AFDC. Over the next year, the County will be developing a mechanism to better track family homelessness, based on the number and type of calls received by the Crisis Center's new 800 hot line. ; Status of Contra Costa: Homelessness among children has decreased 69% over the past 5 years, from an estimated 8,293 homeless children in FY 92-93 to 2,563 in FY 96-97. The greatest number of homeless were recorded in June 1993, with 914 children receiving homeless assistance. The lowest number, 118, was recorded in September 1996. Page 10 i i ' ye P., b=; I {'uGoa:sat 1 "rl� Homelessness Among Contra Costa Children FY 92-93 to FY 96-97 1 � f 10000 - 8293 8079 8000 7125 r> i 6000 - 4000 - 2000 000 40002000 r=. 0 - 92-93 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 E It Source: Contra Costa County Social Service Department data on AFDC ¢4 Homeless Assistance cases. Number of children are esfimated based on an average 1.9 children per case. , c~ Page 11 . High School Youth Staying in School Graduation rates show the share of enrolled high school seniors L graduating in their senior year. In the 1994-95 school year, Contra Costa had a public high school graduation rate of 91.0 percent, slightly higher than the statewide rate of 89.5 percent. Unfortunately, some high school students drop out of school prior to their senior years. This information is daptured by high school dropout rates. Description of Indicator: The dropout rate is defined as the percentage of 9th through 12th graders who drop out of public high schools during a given year. Status of Contra Costa: Contra Costa's public school dropout rate has remained consistently below California's dropout rate during the 1990s. During the 1995-96 school year, 875 Contra Costa youth dropped out of the 9th through 12th grades out of a total public high school enrollment of 39,915. x Annual Dropout Rates for Grades 9 through 12 in Contra Costa and California, 1891-92 through 1995-96 10% 8% - -�` "Calf ornia Contra Costa 4% - - 3.9% 2% 2.4% 2.2% 7% 2.5% 2.2% 0% 91-92 92-93 93-94 9495 95-96 �4 Source: CA Department of Education, Research, Evaluation and Technology Division, Dropout Rates for Calrfomia Public School Districts,1991-95 -1995-96. Page 12 t , .> 1 t i 1 i 1 fl �A.. t The countywide dropout rate masks some of the discrepancies in dropout rates among Contra Costa school districts. The dropout - � rates of Contra Costa School districts range from a low of 0.1 percent to a high of 3.0 percent Two school districts, Mount Diablo Unified and West Contra Costa Unified, enrolled 46.2 percent of all 9th- 12th graders but accounted for 58.4 percent of all public high school dropouts in 1995-96. Annual Dropout Rates for Grades 9 through 12 _ in Contra Costa School Districts, 1995-96 �e 4% 1: 3.0% 2.9°k o 3/0 2.7% 2.5% I o k' 2 Ao 1.7% 1.2% L 1% 0.7% 0.5% 0=o/. E•. 0% c o c c R E >. c 'S N R V 0 C 0 g_ a n J Source:CA Department of Education,Research, Evaluation and Technology Division,High School Performance Report, 94-95 and 95-96. i iz is Page 13 ; 177 x { :.._ . I i nies�nnM�nrin� nEnrnn■�s High School Seniors Ready for College 4 3 K In today's advanced economy, a college education is a hiring prerequisite for many employers. When youth leave high school having met the course requirements for admission to four-year d universities, they enter adulthood with an academic advantage. This measure of scholastic achievement is applicable not only to youth directly enrolling in a four year program, but also to those going on to a community college. Description of Indicator: University-readiness is measured by the percentage of public high school graduates who completed all course requirements for admission to the University of California or the California State University systems. These requirements include specified courses in the social sciences, English, mathematics, laboratory science, foreign language and college- preparatory elective courses. Status of Contra Costa: In 1996, 39.2 percent of all graduating seniors in Contra Costa had met the course requirements of University of California/California State University. This percentage compares favorably with the 34.8 percent average for California. Since 1991, the share has increased slightly from 37.6 percent for Contra Costa and 32.5 percent for California. However, within Contra Costa, the levels of university-readiness differ dramatically _ among school districts. & �u . Page 14 1 f -I-n E Percentage of Graduating Seniors Meeting University ` F Course Admission Requirements by School District, 1996 z i_ 100% r t: 80% t ' 67.9% 60% f 49.0% N8 40% 37.7% 33.9% 33.5% 30.1% 6 23.1% 24.3% : 20.6% eY-' 20% 0% d �p C N M ' N C1 Q c �6 � �^,,, � V k, Q c a o w ; E c V U) t;`Y Source: CA Department of Education, Research, Evaluation and Technology Division, High School Performance Report, 95-96. f Page 15 # i 3 E t z� E 3 1 1 �4r i CHILDREN AND YOUTH HEALTHY F F A -NO PREPARINC, FOR .PRODUCTIVE ADULTHOOD �m 4. E a 1 r x r i s 1 i 2 Births to Adolescent Girls r High teenage birth rates are strongly associated with reduced opportunities in life. When teenage girls give birth, they often drop out of school and are unprepared to take on the challenges of parenthood. Description of Indicator: The adolescent birth rate is defined as the rate of live births to females between the ages of 15 and 19 per 1,000 females in the 15-19 year old age cohort. Status of Contra Costa: Contra Costa's adolescent birth rate decreased between 1990 and 1995 from 45.1 to 37.6 births per 1,000 15-19 year olds. This rate is well below the Califomia rate, which fell from 72.7 to 64.4 during the same time period. The number of births to Contra Costa teenagers under the age of 15 has stayed below 25 live births per year since 1991. East and West County together accounted for 56 percent of total births and Y 75 percent of births to persons 19 years old and younger. r � I Page 18 w r : I jr Births to Teens Ages 15-19 in Contra Costa & CA (per 1,000) 100 q ®Contra Costa []California 80 72.7 71.1 69.9 68 64.4 60 45. 41.3 E 39.5 39.3 37.6 - 40 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Source: CA Department of Health Services, Advance Report: California Vital s Statistics, 1992-1996. CA Department of Finance, Demographic Unit, Population Projections. E= Regional Distribution of Total Births vs. Teen Births I in Contra Costa, 1995 i. F&= ❑West -------------- u, 44% 24% . r go ` ❑Central Total Teen Births: Births: El East 12,517 1,093 i' e Source:CA Department of Health Services,Center for Health Statistics, Data Tables: u Birth Profiles by Zipcode,California, 1995 t Page 19 a d s I f t 3 i f u fi Juvenile Drug Arrests Description of Indicator: The juvenile drug arrest rate is defined } as the number of drug arrests of youth ages 10-17 per 10,000 youth. Juvenile drug arrests by region are the absolute number of Yo felony and misdemeanor youth ages 10-17 arrested on drug charges in West County, Central County, East County and tidedag County. Drug arrests for unincorporated areas are only in County totals. it is important to note that while juvenile drug arrests serve as an indicator of juvenile drug use, there may be a who never have run-ins significant number of drug-using juveniles with law enforcement. Status of Contra Costa: Trends in juvenile drug arrest rates in d statewide trends, reaching a low in Contra Costa have mirrore � 1990, climbing y steadil through 1994, and dropping slightly in 1995. consistently has While Contra Costa's juvenile drug arrest rate arrests iny ' remained below California's, the number of juvenile drug Contra Costa doubled between 1990 and 1994, rising from 246 toYL 504. Within Contra Costa, there has been a notable shift in the distribution of juvenile drug arrests across regions. In 1990, for example, West County accounted for 61 � percent of all juvenile drug arrests, East County for 16 percent, Central County for 21 percent and South County for 1 percent. BY 1995, West County percent of all juvenile, r ' accounted for 19 p drug arrests, East County for 28 percent, Central for 35 percent and South County � for 18 percent. s i r Page 20 -°z a — _03 Y ..—g.,, ..v. 16 e rn Juvenile Drug Arrests per 10,000 Persons Ages 10-17, Contra Costa County and California, 1989-19954_.__ 70 66.8 12 60 61.9 • (D �• p 50 �� � . • 50.1 v 40 43.2 • - r '0 30 0 0 20 —*-—Juvenlle"Drug Arrests,CCC 0 10 - -a -Juvenile Drug Arrests,CA ❑. w 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 i Source:CA Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement €" Information Center, California Criminal Justice Profile 1995. :' Juvenile Drug Arrests in Contra Costa County by Region, 1989-1995 2 200 d 160 120 f f 80 r.. o 40 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Z O West County O Central County ■East County M South County , Source:Contra Costa Health Services Department,Community Substance Abuse Services Division, 1995-96 Substance Abuse Problem Indicators, 1997. Page 21 t x i u :y s Underage Juvenile Alcohol Arrest & r DVI Offenders 44 t - _ ------------------Description-of-Indicator: The-juvenile-alcohol-arrest-rate_is i defined as the number of-alcohol arrests of youth ages 10-17 perVA 10,000 youth. Underage Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Offenders are defined as youth ages 13-18 who caused traffic accidents in 1995-96. Status of Contra Costa: 385 youth were arrested for alcohol use in the incorporated-areas of Contra Costa in 1995. The number of __- arrests increased substantially from 268 in 1994. Contra Costa's juvenile alcohol arrest rate has mirrored California's for the past six years. However, while California's juvenile alcohol arrest rate surpassed Contra Costa's in 1989, by 1995 Contra Costa's juvenile alcohol arrest rate of 38.3 surpassed California's rate of 31.0. Contra Costa's and California's juvenile alcohol arrest rates hit lows of 23.7 and 27.1 respectively in 1993. Since 1993, Contra Costa's juvenile alcohol arrest rate has increased more M substantially than Californias. There were 108 incidents of underage DUI offenders causing traffic accidents in 1995-1996. The highest number of arrests occurred " nty, followed by West and in the unincorporated regions of the Cou then East County. g Page 22 i'. Y F g fir F Juvenile Alcohol Arrests per 10,000 Persons Ages 10-17, Contra f Costa County and California, 1989-1995 50 45 • 42.7 cu • >. 40 38.3 35 ae 1. � • z' o 31.0 - - ---- --- -- ---- - -- ------- --30- - ------- w 25 >°. 20 0 15 o c Juvenlie Alcohol Arrests,CCC -. 0 10 a� 5 -�- -Juvenile Alcohol Arrests,CA a 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Traffic Accidents Caused by Underage DUI Offenders in Contra Costa by Region, 1995-96 35 29 30 26 25 23 22 20 15 11 10 7 5 0 ELV) N a 0 (Dw 0 _ U co U D *These accidents occurred on the Contra Costa side of a Contra Costa/other County border, but were handled by CHP officer assigned to another County. E Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department, Community Substance Abuse Services Division, 1995-96 Substance Abuse Problem Indicators, 1997. Page 23 +t` 1 A Juveniles Committing Violent Crimes Violent crime is on the rise throughout the nation. Especially -----------------alarming-is-the-increase-in-violent-acts-committed by-youth and--------- -- children. Description of Indicator: Violent offenses are defined as homicide, forcible rape, robbery, assault and kidnaping. The k juvenile arrest rate is defined as the number of children and youth ages 10 through 17 arrested per 100,000 persons in the 10-17 year old age cohort. Misdemeanor arrests are not included in these .— totals. The juvenile share of total violent felony arrests is defined as the percentage of all felony arrests for violent offenses of persons ages 10-17. Status of Contra Costa: While Contra Costa's juvenile violent crime rate has consistently remained lower than California's, Contra Costa has witnessed a considerable rise in the rate of violent crimes committed by juveniles. Contra Costa's juvenile crime rate of 339 per 100,000 juveniles in 1985 rose to 532 per 100,000 juveniles by 1995. California experienced an increase from 401 inIml 1985 to 622 in 1995. While California's juvenile violent crime arrest rate fell between 1990 and 1995, Contra Costa's rate rose. The absolute number of violent youth crimes in Contra Costa almost ' doubled from 1985 to 1995, rising from 286 to 533. Youth commit a larger percentage of all violent crimes in Contra Costa than statewide. The share has been increasing since 1989. �,��':•.'fir"`✓�Y!e' �f!�:j'f' WAS;�,. .•' f``` 7t I �t Page 24 E } t r C: Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate for Violent Offenses, 1986-95 M 800 700 ■California 656 I 0Contra Costa 622 1 600 532 a 500 401 464 --- rn --- ----- ---339 -- ---------- ---- ----------------- 400 >0 300 O k. C 200 O 100 ` _ L d t CL p; 0 a 1985 1990 1995 Juvenile Share of Total Violent Felony Arrests, k. Contra Costa and California, 1986-1995 25% ❑Contra Costa ■Califomia 20% 19% 16% 15% 4° 12% 10% 5% 0% 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 i i L Source: CA Dept of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement Information Center, CA Criminal Justice Profile 1995. Page 25 4 Ly+ � 1 �4 i l a �<k �t FAMILIES THAT e --------- ------------------------------- A-RE _--___-_________ C O O IC A Y SELF � SUFFICIENT ®MU® 7 s i i ♦y' E 6 r d �� 11 F . `K f Median Family Incomes and Unemployment ry ------------- ------------- Description of Indicators: Family income is defined as the median area income per family as calculated by the California Department a of Housing for January 1997. The unemployment rate is defined as the average number of members.of the labor force who are considered"unemployed"in a given year using the definition of the California Employment Development Department. It is important to , note that the official definition of unemployment is limited to t persons who are actively seeking jobs and does not include people who are "underemployed" or who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. Status of Contra Costa: Contra Costa is among the counties in California with the highest average levels of income and the lowest ` levels of unemployment. In 1997, the median area income for Contra Costa families was$60,100 per year-- over$10,000 higher than the figure for California. Unemployment rates in Contra Costa are also relatively low. In 1996 Contra Costa had an average annual unemployment rate of 4.9 percent versus California's 1996 unemployment rate of 7.2 ' percent. Within Contra Costa, there is a wide disparity in unemployment rates across metropolitan areas. In April 1997 cities with the highest unemployment rates included San Pablo (8.5 percent), Richmond (7.9 percent), Pittsburg (5.8 percent) and Antioch(5.5 percent). Unemployment rates are often even higher ,x in the unincorporated regions of the County. 4 While the absolute number of residents who are unemployed has fallen in recent years, Contra Costa still had an estimated ,- unemployed population of 22,600 in 1996. Page 28 f � s { Y 'f t I Median Family Income, 1997 t 'h Contra Costa County: $60,100 California: $50-000 ---------------- ------------------ Source: -- - ----------------Source:California Department of Housing and Community Development,Income Limits,January 1997. It Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa and California, ; 1990 - 1996 12% O Contra Costa e California 10% 9.3% 9.4% 8.6% 70 .7/o 7.8% 0 8/0 7.2% 6.5°/ 6.5% 5.8% 6.205.7° 6% 5.4°/ 4.9° 4.0° 4% 2% i 0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 E Source: Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment, 1997. C i j r Page 29 i i F f t i 7 ' , 4J - .+?n+:'"...�;m ...x.:'/i'rs.]' ..+'v"mow _ •.._f *+"� ".�" J Y " . x Free and Reduced Price lunches -' Children enrolled in.school are eligible for the federal free and reduced lunch program when their family's income is at or below ---- 185 percent of the federal poverty level. In this report card, At- x enrollment in the-free arnd'reduced-lunch-program-serves-as-an- - Y indicator of the poverty levels of school-aged children. 14 s Description of Indicator: Free and reduced lunch participation measures the number of school aged children and youth utilizing k the national free and reduced lunch program in Contra Costa r County in the 1996-97 school year. The percentage of participating 4 . fi children by region measures the share of all students participating in the free and reduced lunch program as a share of total students enrolled in public and private schools. The percentage of children ' who are eligible for subsidized lunches is probably somewhat higher than the percentage participating in the program, because not all eligible children apply for the program. This may be a i particularly true for high school-aged youth, due to the perceived ,. stigma of receiving subsidized school meals. Status of Contra Costa: In the 1996-97 school year, 40,425 , school-aged children were participating in the free and reduced lunch program in Contra Costa, out of a total enrollment of 147,603. Just over 1 in 4 school-aged children and youth in Contra Costa ,. have incomes low enough to qualify for this subsidized program. 4 ; T.. 1 �5 447 Page 30 A r a r t �b E-ZEN4,.,,.x^' Children Participating in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program in Contra Costa County, 1991-1996 50,000 a 39,621 40,425 t 40000 34,896 36,812 27,798 32,453 30,000 f ----- ------- ------- -—— 20,000 10,000 0 F 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: CA Department of Education, Needy Children Data for California Public School Districts, 1991-1996. j Share of.Students Participating in the Federal Free and F Reduced Lunch Program by Contra Costa Region, 1996 57% 49% 28% 31% 31% 32% 22% 23% 16 8°l0 10% ` 3% i% n % IL 4) c o' s ami v b 0 m U ' p U c r g d� 0 All under 3%. Free and reduced lunch participation rates were: Orinda (0.0%), Moraga(0.1%),Lafayette(0.2%),Acalanes(2.3%)and San Ramon(1.8%). Source: CA Department of Education, 1996/97 Free/Reduced Meals I Information,1997. c E Page 31 i f 3 4, { } f `t'R" :.:.` ..Mw.. »,'gSMN ..w..w+ .. k EId Care Availability do Affordability a 4 F rot Child care availability and affordability is critical for all working ' ------ ------ ---------parents. Child care costs can pose a mayor burden to working parents, particularly to diose with-!ow hourly-earnings or part-time - - work. Among the likely impacts of welfare reform is an influx of more parents into the labor force and, thus, greater demand for _O child care. • Description of Indicator: The first indicator measures the availability of child care to persons eligible for the five major child care subsidy programs in California (General Child Care, Federal .ti Block Grant, Title IV-A, State Preschool, Mead Start). Data was not `. 4 available on enrollment in other subsidized child care programs or , ;. in private programs. The second indicator measures the affordability of child care based on average costs of care and minimum wage salaries. Status of Contra Costa: Contra Costa has an estimated 33,886 children who are eligible for the five major child care subsidy ' programs. Approximately 15 percent of the children who are i eligible for these child care programs are served by them. It is likely that only a small portion of the unmet need depicted in the accompanying chart is actually being met by programs other than the five major subsidy programs. The child careP a appears ears to be 4 9 great throughout the County. Approximately 64 percent of all licensed care is center-based. The average cost of full-time infant or toddler care in a licensed center is equivalent to 80 percent of the minimum wage. The average ' .i cost of full-time pre-school child care in a licensed center is i equivalent to 56 percent of minimum wage. Licensed family day care homes are typically less expensive then centers. For parents with more than one young child, child care costs are an even ;nx greater barrier to economic self-sufficiency. 3 Page 32 4 j Y - Share of Children Eligible for Five Major Subsidized Child Care Programs Served in Contra Costa County 40,000 35,000 p Population Eligible 33, 886 30,000 ■Population Served - f 25,000 ------------- - 20,000 15,000 12,720 = 10,047 9,627 I 10,000 ,181 = 2 516 - __ ;_ i 5 000 _ _ _:_. , _ 1 492 --= OR 474 - � 1 1194 , 0 0Pte+ w C C Z U N U U Ta f Source: Child Care Task Force, Contra Costa County Child Care Master Plan,Plan 2001. j i Salaries and Child Care Costs in Contra Costa, 1995 Minimum wage salary. $5.00/hour($10,200/year) " Average cost of full-time care for a child under 2 years old in a licensed child care center. $159/week or$8,268 annually(80% of minimum wage). i € Average cost of full-time care for a child 2-5 years old in a licensed child care center. $111/week or$5,772 annually(56% of minimum wage). Source:CA Child Care Resource&Referral Network, The California Child t Care Portfolio, 1997. 4 Page 33 i1 Fs xS - i 1 FAMILIES � f THAT A ---''----------------------__---_-- --_-_.-----'- - ----- F AFE , A 1 f AN [)- NURTURING d � ............... ear 's. J f f it ii z E f. ;4 Births to Mothers withTimely Prenatal Care ` __—_ ________ n L p A vital aspect of improving pregnancy outcomes,-and-ultimately-the------ e health of children and mothers, is increasing early entrance into prenatal care. When pregnant women receive timely prenatal care, k a range of pregnancy-related problems can be detected and treated. Timely prenatal care reduces the likelihood of having :..` premature and low-birth weight babies. Additionally, perinatal mortality rates for both a child and a mother are reduced with early prenatal care. Description of Indicator: Timely prenatal care is measured by the ux share of live births to mothers who v received prenatal care during the first trimester of pregnancy, as self-reported on birth certificates. ` :# K- t v Yt Status of Contra Costa: 12,517 ; live babies were born in Contra ,. Costa County in 1995. 82.7 percent of these births were to mothers who entered into prenatal care during the first trimester of =3 their pregnancies. This figure remained relatively constant during '+ the 1990s. In California, 78.3 percent of all births were to mothers 4 who received prenatal care during their first trimesters. Regionally, a disparity exists in utilization of prenatal care. The percentage of births to mothers who received prenatal care during }; their first trimester was lowest in East County (77.3 percent) and highest in Central County (86.9 percent). Page 36 7777 __._. .. ., x.. _ } � 3 x�: i , • a F� b "td x,� T��?•� f ^v'ffx( Jpu F I Percentage of Births to Mothers Who Received Timely ` Prenatal Care by Contra Costa Region, 1995 100% 90% 86.9% 81.7% 82.6% 80% 77.3% 78.3% 70% 60% i 50% s o c 0o 0 6 w U U I i Source:CA Department of Health Services,Center for Health Statistics,Data Tables: I Birth Profiles by Zipcode, California, 1995. Page 37 C r � t 1 �- i Child Abuse Reports Allegations of neglect or abuse that come to the attention of Children's Protective Services are captured in the form of child abuse reports. Child abuse typically takes place-in-the child's home--- and most often is committed by adults responsible for the care of the child. Description of Indicator: This measure is defined as the total number of reported incidents of child sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect(severe and general), caretaker absence or incapacity and other abuse(emotional abuse and exploitation). The total number of child abuse reports includes a small number of reports made of , different incidents occurring to the same child in the same year. 4 Status of Contra Costa:There were 20,382 reports of child abuse in Contra Costa County in 1996. The number of child abuse cases has risen 51 per cent in the County since 1991 when there were 13,467 child abuse reports. It is difficult to determine, however, to what extent the increase results from reports of previously unreported incidents of child abuse or an actual increase in the number of child abuse incidents. The most common reason for referral is neglect, followed by ,n physical abuse and then sexual abuse, In FY 96-97, 31 percent of 4s active child abuse cases involved parental drug or alcohol abuse. SS 5 8 C' A d Page 38 17, r 4 Child Abuse Reports by Referral Reason, 1996 3 Caretaker Incapacity then or Absence 4 12% E Sexuala, Neglect Abuse 41% 14% r f`> Physical Abuse 29% r Source: Contra Costa County Department of Social Service,Monthly Statistical Reports, Emergency Response and Family Maintenance Program Activity, 1996. ` I Child Abuse Reports in Contra Costa, 1991-96 21,000 19,000 17,000 15,000 13,000 11,000 ; 9,000 7,000 ; t 5,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Child Welfare Research Center,U.C. Berkeley, Performance Indicators for Child Welfare Services in California: 1995(1991-1995);Contra Costa County It Department of Social Service,Monthly Statistical Reports,Emergency Response and Family Maintenance Program Activity, 1996. ) f Page 39 ='t ; _.3 � 1 r n i 1 4 _ tl/ Children in Faster Care E "S" .e When children cannot be safely cared for in their homes, Children's Protective-Services-places-them-in-foster-care.-Sometimes these placements are temporary with children successfully returning to their families. In other cases, foster care becomes a bridge to permanent placement in an adoptive home. u Description of indicator: The rate of foster care placement is = " defined as the number of children under the age of 18 in foster care on July 1st of a given year per 1,000 persons in the under 18 age group. The share of children in kinship homes in 1995 is defined as the percentage of the foster care population placed with relatives by the court. Other foster care is defined as children placed in foster homes, foster family agency homes, group homes and other homes (special small family homes, county shelter or receiving homes, medical facilities and specialized pilot project l homes). - Status of Contra Costa: In 1991 Contra Costa's foster carer placement rate of 11.2 per 1,000 youth surpassed California's, which was 8.6 per 1,000 youth. By 1995 Contra Costa's level of foster care placements had fallen to 9,4 and California's had risen to 9.5. In terms of absolute numbers, total foster care placements in Contra Costa have fallen slightly in recent years, from 2,316 placements in 1991 to 2,154 placements in 1995. During the same time period, the number of foster care placements in Califomia rose from 69,843 to 87,010. Children's Protective Services tries, whenever possible, to place = children with relatives. In 1995, 45.1 percent of Contra Costa's . foster care population was in kinship care. Contra Costa's kinship r care level is slightly down from the 1991 share of 46.3 percent. In California, the percentage of foster kids in kinship care placement z W_ rose from 42.8 percent to 46.3 percent of the same time period. Page 40 " 4 x 9 w "y3-�4"'w 4 $. +ori.e2.' iP1'�i F'�f ..?s' �..^'a .C�„.,,. mom^ ?.'S�"'7✓� ...y...._.�v-•—�— _ F Children under 18 in Foster Care: Rate per 1,000 r i 12 11.2 - --------------10 ' - 9.5 9 9.4 ; is 8.6 . 8 k i — —Califomia - -•- -Contra Costa 6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Share of Contra Costa Foster Children in Kinship Homes, 1995 F-. Kinship Care a. 45% f{L;3 I Source:Child Welfare Research Center, U.C. Berkeley,Performance Indicators for Child Welfare Services in California: 1995. f Page 41 F COMMUNITIES THAT ARESAFE ---------------------- ---------- ------------------------------------------a AND P HIGH QUALITY OF L FOR CHILDREN AND A F I MLIES n� .. �1 � VYll , 4 S f 1 I ` 8 Injuries to Children and Youth Definition of Indicator: Injuries to children and youth are defined as non-fatal, hospitalized injuries-to persons ages 0=18 in Contra Costa County in 1995. This data does not include children and youth who received care at an emergency room but were note admitted to the hospital. Also, children and youth who died from their injuries are not included in the meagure. Motor vehicle injuries include injuries to motor vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrian hit by cars, bicyclists hit by cars and off road motor vehicle users. Other includes: pedalcycle, other transportation, 3 environmental, drowning/submersion, suffocation, foreign body, machinery, cutting or piercing, unintentional firearm, explosives, - electricity, overexertion, late effects, legal intervention and ''k undetermined intent. k Status of Contra Costa: Children and youth in Contra Costa County were admitted to the hospital for 787 non-fatal injuries in a 1995. Youth ages 13-18 accounted for 48 percent of these injuries, while children under 6 accounted for 32 percent and children ages 7-12 accounted for 24 percent. Fails account for the largest shares of non-fatal injuries to 0-6 and - lit 7-12 year olds. Poisoning is the second most common cause of non-fatal injuries for 0-6 year olds and motor vehicle injuries are the second most common cause for 7-12 . year olds. In contrast, motor vehicles account for the largest share of non- fatal injuries (22 percent) to Contra Costa youth ages 13-18. Assault and self-inflicted injuries take on a much larger portion of non-fatal injuries as youth enter their teenage years. Page 44 , t .l i { 3% t Non Fatal, Hospitalized injuries to Children and Youth (ages CIM 1qrn Contra Costa CoWit'"'byCause, 1995 i § - .T ti:' v 4..5m my -.bin s ..w. i -vm._'k9 ia`w-6nX:w'aun..",b.. .nt = ♦ r H } 4 s 4 " 6Yr 4 3Y. 4« w'79Yn� a a Y x '7 44 _ � 4 k, k w.w ms`s S 4 « « y - 3 �,-44 �i ( g d' M; M t 44i 7 'E 444 .w4 t" h 44 fid„¢. 'b i, k k kw a4k �, 4 4w f ZZ � �1 �� b y 1 GW r 8X other aY• `. Burns $ MStruck'`tiy ObJec t • 1Yf MAssault Oi v - # ; � r£ was = Selilnfllcted , a� I V _V t h �MotorvehlciMIK e :4 J, �Potson, X�ztng V v MFall 9-•#'.. "`a% ,S� t {f� +'P A:a�f `� � �._;i f F'""F� � t .3� �� z # '-3 n vl `a .m a 3Y. r n 1 0•%. 35Y. Y•' 14No G.6'yn"eat olds "" + M2'=year'olds13-18=year"olds !i A Source:California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Hospital Discharge Dataset, Prepared 1 t by California Department of Health Services,Injury Surveillance and Epidemiology Section. Page 45 Lv a F , e s a v Sudden Deaths to Children and Youth s Definition of Indicator: This measure is defined as sudden deaths to Contra Costa youth and children under the age of 18. Sudden { ------------------deaths do-not-include-deaths to children and-youth-with-chronic or--- terminal diseases who are under a doctor's care at the time of death. The majority of sudden deaths are investigated by the County Coroner. The data included in this measure only pertains to these Coroner-investigated deaths Status of Contra Costa: There were 162 sudden deaths of '3 children and youth ages 0-17 in Contra Costa between July 1990zw and June 1993. Between July 1993 and June 1996, the number of sudden deaths grew to 189. During the 1990-93 period, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) . � p accounted for the largest portion of all deaths to 0-17 year olds at 36.4 percent. In the 1993-96 period, accidents accounted for the largest share of all child and youth deaths at 28.6 percent. Y There was a significant drop in the absolute number of SIDS deaths during the two periods, falling from 59 during 1990-93 to 38 during 1993-96. During this same time period, the absolute number of child and youth homicides tripled in Contra Costa, rising from 13 to 39. i ;i a e r EE t ; Page 46 Ft"k; z 3 e ii 4 Sudden Deaths to Contra Costa Children and Youth under Age 18, 1990-93 and 1993-96 Accidental 28.6% ------------------------------------- -- 21.6"/0 - --------------- ---- — - --- ---------- I - Homicide 20.6% 8.0% SIDS 20.1% 36.4% Natural 19.6% 20.4% `f Undetermined 5.8°k 4.3% F, 1 � Suicide 5.3% 6.2% ®June 93-July 96 K Neglect ❑July 90-June 93 3.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Source:Child Death Review Team, Case Review, FY 90-91 -FY 95-96. i I Page 47 i s I{ 1 i _ a EFirearm Assaults and Homicides Description of Indicator: Firearm assaults are defined as non- ----- ------ ----fatal-use-of firearms.-Firearmhomicides are defined as fatal use --------- - Of firearms. Not included in either category are legally justified, - { self-inflicted, unintentional and undetermined firearm injuries and �2 deaths. The firearm assault and homicide rate is calculated per 100,000 members of the population. Firearm assault and homicides by victim age describes the share of different age = categories in overall firearm assaults and homicides. i 3v l Status of Contra Costa: There were 310 firearm assaults and 111 firearm homicides in Contra Costa between July 1, 1993 and June _ 30, 1994. 60.3 percent of the County's firearm assaults and 42.3 percent of the County's firearm homicides occurred in the City of Richmond. The firearm assault and homicide rate for Contra Costa County was - 86.6 per 100,000 persons. At. 151.5 per 100,000 persons, the firearm assault and homicide rate in West County was over three. times higher than in East County, which experienced the second Iq highest regional rate of 43.6. Assault and homicide rates were . considerably higher in specific cities and unincorporated areas. The highest rates occurred in North Richmond (1,193.0 per 100,000), Richmond (253.6 per , F 100,000), San Pablo (175.6 per =t 100,000), Bethel Island (94.6 per j 100,000) and Bay Point (74.5 per 100,000). Youth and children under the age 3 of 20 were the victims in over 1 in 4 firearm assaults in Contra Costa. Almost half of all firearm assault and homicide victims are youth and young adults ages 15 through 24. Page 48 4`w yl-1 r !a f% f �K ,5 I � Firearm Assault and Homicide Rates (per 100,000) by Region, Contra Costa, July 1, 1993 -June 30, 1994 West County MU .. 43.6 ------------ East County - ---- - 3N. -- - - --- 6 Central County 42 , 1.8 ■Firearm Assault & Homicide Rate 1.1 ❑Firearm Homicide Rate South County o [3 Firearm Assault Rate ' 1.1 0 50 100 150 200 f; Total Firearm Assaults&Injuries =421 Source:Contra Costa Health Services Department,Prevention Program,Profile of .i Firearm Injuries and Deaths in Contra Costa County,April 1996. '�x Firearm Assaults & Homicides by Victim Age, Contra Costa, July 1,1993 -June 30, 1994 20-24 years: 25% 15-19 years: r,. 22% ; Over 24 years: 49% 10-14 years: 3% 0-9 years:1% Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department, Community Substance Abuse Services Division, 1995-96 Substance Abuse Problem Indicators, 1997. Page 49 ,�- 6 Si , i _ a Alcohol-Related Traffic Injuries and _ Fatalities 3 5 ` 3 ----------------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------ Description of Indicator: Alcohol-related traffic injuries are defined as people injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities are defined as people killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes. The alcohol-related traffic injury and fatality rate is defined as the number of persons injured and killed in alcohol- related traffic accidents per 100,000 persons. 1 -related traffic Status of Contra Costa: The number of alcohol injuries and fatalities dropped considerably in Contra Costa between 1990 and 1996. While 1,213 Contra Costa residents were .i injured in alcohol-related crashes in 1990, 302 Contra Costa residents were injured in alcohol-related crashes in 1996. Alcohol- related traffic fatalities fell from 48 to 14 over the 1990-1996 period. # Contra Costa's declining number of alcohol-related traffic injuries and fatalities mirrors statewide trends. Contra Costa's alcohol- Jy a related traffic injury and fatality rates remain well below California averages. f 5' b T 1 9 Mi Or Y n' Page 50 ii4- Ej RJ 1 L i 1 Alcohol-Related Traffic Injuries and Fatalities, Contra Costa, 1990-1996 1,600 1,4001 213 a Persons injured q Persons filled --------------- 1'2001,091 ---- -- ----- - s1 - _ -- ------- - -889-- — - ---- = -- 1,0 1,000 805 739 800 600L 400 289 302 200 48 U61 [28 34 L21 1[14 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Alcohol-Related Traffic Injury and Fatality Rates (per 100,000), California & Contra Costa, 1990-1996 250 - -o- -California 23 --o---Contra Costa 200 ' 0 191 157 ' 0 164 150 T141 - 9J41 •e 126 109 ' • 100 97 • - e �4 • - ;' 88 90 50 36 36 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994. 1995 1996 Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department, Community -- Substance Abuse Services Division, 1995096 Substance Abuse ` Problem Indicators, 1997. krJ Page 51 7 s F&HS - 04 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSse --o` e .._ . Contra FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Costa n: s ..gyp" County DATE: July' 28, 1997 �as;A sin SUBJECT: PREPARATION OF THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUDGET FOR THE 1997-98 FISCAL YEAR SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT the Children and Family Services Budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year. 2. EXPRESS the Board's deep appreciation for the dedication and commitment of the department staff in supplying the data needed to prepare the budget and to Sara Hoffman and her staff in the County Administrator's Office for organizing the data, preparing the format and providing all of the necessary oversight which has resulted in the Children and Family Services Budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator to include in the Children and Family Services Budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year information on which programs are mandated and which are optional. 4. DIRECT the County Administrator to review those programs which tend to intervene after problems have occurred with an individual or a family and identify prevention programs which, if applied successfully earlier in the process might prevent problems from growing to the extent that expensive secondary and tertiary intervention services are required and identify those for the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON Augu9t 0, 1997 APPROVED AS REC ED X OTHER The Board approved the recommendations as set forth above. In the course of discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that the item also be referred to the Business Alliance Group. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT II_ 1 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CCt ATTESTED August 5, 1997 County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Policy Forum Executive Committee (Via Sara HOMMA)SORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator M382 (10/88) BY— ,DEPUTY 4 F&HS - 04 5. DIRECT the County Administrator to prepare a Children and Family Services Budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year and REFER this subject to the 1998 Family and Human Services Committee to provide general oversight to the format and content of the Budget, removing it as a referral to the 1997 Family and Human Services Committee. BACKGROUND: On February 4, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee directing the County Administrator to prepare the 1997-98,Children and Family Services Budget in a particular format. The recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors at that time included the following: 1. REAFFIRM the Board's interest in having the Children & Family Services Program Budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year broken into the nine categories outlined in the attached memo from Sara Hoffman. 2. DIRECT the County Administrator to include a new section in 1997-98 on any program innovations which have occurred in the past year. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator to incorporate the Children's Report Card in the 1997-98 budget. 4. DIRECT the County Administrator to ask each department to include additional information on outcome indicators so the Board of Supervisors and the general public can begin to see what programs are working and can judge whether they are getting their money's worth out of the programs and services that are being provided. 5. DIRECT the County Administrator to highlight for the Board of Supervisors any departments which have been able to do a particularly outstanding job of identifying outcome indicators,the extent to which they are being achieved and cost savings that have been identified and implemented so the Board can express its appreciation for the responsiveness of these department heads. 6. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to return this subject to the Family and Human Services Committee if it is necessary for the Board to remind departments of the importance of providing information on the extent to which programs are achieving what they were designed to do. Otherwise, DIRECT the County Administrator to forward the 1997-98 Children and Family Services Program Budget to the Board of Supervisors when it is completed. The County Administrator and Sara Hoffman met with our Committee on July 28, 1997 and reviewed with us a nearly final draft of the Children and Family Services Budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The Board is being supplied a copy of the final version on August 5, 1997. We are extremely pleased with the format and content of the Budget, which provides the Board and the general public an enormous amount of information on programs operated by this County in the area of children and family services, including outcome indicators and outcome data in most cases. For many of the programs the categories of "initiatives," "system savings," and "interrelationships" have been added this year. It is most impressive to realize that we are able to provide nearly $400 million in programs to children and families with an investment of less than $60 million in County cost. Supervisor Gerber asked how we could highlight some of the information and get it out to the public in a more usable form. She also noted that many of the programs are available to all residents of the County, without regard to economic status and asked whether those programs could be highlighted for the information of the -2- � f o F&HS - 04 general public. She also asked whether information could be included on which programs are mandated and which are optional. Staff indicated that a summary of the information on mandated versus optional services could be prepared and included in the final Budget document the Board will receive on August 5, 1997. -3- • COUNTY OI{ CONTRA COSTA Children &. Family Services Budget 1997-98 • • Presented to the Board of Supervisors MARK DeSAULNIER Chair Supervisor, District IV JIM ROGERS DONNA GERBER Supervisor, District I Supervisor, District III GAYLE B. UILICEMA JOE CANCIAMILLA Supervisor, District II Supervisor, District V • By Phil Batchelor County Administrator I � i This Page heft Intentionally Blank INTRODUCTION The FY 97-98 Children and Family Services Budget identifies 102 county programs with expenditures of over $397 million that serve children and families. $59 million of the expenditures are financed by County general funds, which are used to leverage federal, state and other revenues. Children's Report Card • As a community, what do we want for our children and families in Contra Costa County? The newly created Children's Report Card delineates five community outcomes: �k Children ready for and succeeding in school • Children and youth healthy and preparing for productive adulthood �k Families that are economically self sufficient Families that are safe, stable and nurturing Communities that are safe and provide high quality of life for children and families. « These community outcomes are a positive affirmation of our collective concern for the well being of children and families. 90% of the programs identified in the Children's Budget address two or more of these community outcomes, while 47% address three or more of the outcomes. 80% contribute towards children and youth preparing for a productive adulthood, while 64% support the safety, stability and nurturing qualities of families. (See Chart 4, page xiv ) • Safety Net and Crisis Services Society pays a price when these positive outcomes are not achieved. Many of the programs in the Children's Budget are safety net and crisis services that are needed because families are not economically self sufficient, dysfunctional families abuse or neglect their children, and children and youth do not abide by the law. Safety net and crisis services equate to $328 million of the Children's Budget, including: food, shelter, income $180.0 million medical care $ 71.4 million child abuse and neglect $ 50.4 million juvenile delinquency $ 26.6 million Many of the other programs in the Children's Budget provide early intervention or prevention services to help children and families avoid crisis or achieve self-sufficiency. Note the "System Savings" entry under individual program listings for an explanation of how a program helps reduce the need for crisis or safety net services (Also see Chart 2, • page A for a delineation of programs by type). As shown in the Children's Report Card,juvenile delinquency is a problem that cuts across all areas of the County and, by inference, all economic strata. The need for subsidized food, shelter, income and health care is primarily a matter of economic self sufficiency. 0 Unfortunately, some of the families in the County system are experiencing not only unemployment, but also problems relating to family functioning, including substance abuse and mental health issues. New Trends in Serving Clients • The Children's Budget documents a trend toward new approaches in providing services, particularly for high risk, multi-problem children and families. There is increasing recognition of the need for service delivery strategies that respond to individual client needs and that provide a continuum of services that cross disciplinary lines. Program level information about new initiatives and collaboration between programs are included r With many of the program descriptions. In some cases, the shift has been supported by newfinancing flexibilities and regulatory requirements. Others are still struggling under funding and/or regulatory requirements that inhibit change. Overall, however, there is a growing trend towards: ✓ Early Intervention and Prevention. There is a growing recognition and • movement towards services that prevent people from falling into crisis. Examples include the Voluntary Family Maintenance Program, which intervenes with problem families to reduce ,instances of child abuse or neglect and thus the need for foster care. Similarly, the Family, Maternal and Child Health Program provides education and services to prevent the 0 use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs by pregnant women, thereby increasing the number of healthy births. ✓ Community Focus. An increasing number of programs are now community- based, providing services in neighborhoods and in schools. Examples include the Bay Point Wellness Center, which locates public health and clinic services at a local school and the Probation Department's new initiative that locates probation officers in schools. ✓ Collaborative and Integrated Services. More and more programs are working closely with other programs in serving multi-problem families. In • some cases, such as the Family Service Centers in Bay Point and North Richmond, multiple disciplines work together to integrate service delivery. ✓ Redefinition of Safety Net Services. Many safety net services are seeking ways to expand the safety net or crisis services to support remediation for their clients. Examples include Income Maintenance, which is shifting its mission to include helping individuals achieve self sufficiency, and the Summit Center in Juvenile Hall, which is providing mental health and educational services to help youth change their behavior and avoid re-entry into the juvenile justice system. ✓ Accountability for Results. In accordance with the direction of the'Board of Supervisors, programs are looking at how to measure the impact of the program on their clients. Some programs, such as those run by the Private Industry Council and Children's Mental Health, have these systems in place; others are beginning to move in this direction. • Contra Costa County has varying degrees of discretion over the services it provides. Only 25% of the 102 programs in the Children's Budget are completely discretionary. The remaining programs are governed to a greater or lesser degree by state and/or federal regulation/law or by the funding source. Many of the new initiatives delineated in the Children's Budget are the result of programs creatively redefining their practices despite r limiting regulations. Some obtained grant funding. Others have forged partnerships with other programs to better meet their client needs. Guide to Using the Children's Budget The Children's Budget includes direct service programs that benefit children and youth under the age of 21 and/or their parents/guardians/care givers. For some programs, the Children's Budget identifies a portion of a larger program. In these cases, financial data is estimated based on the approximate allocation of program costs between the children and family services and other services. Budgetary data are based on the FY 97-98 Recommended Budget. 0 The Children's Budget is divided into eight categories of service: • Basic Needs. Programs that provide food and shelter to families who would otherwise be without. • Economic Stability and Self Sufficiency. Programs designed to help parents become and/or stay economically self sufficient so that they are able to financially support their children as well as programs to provide basic levels of income. • Family Functioning. Programs designed to increase the stability, safety and integrity of families, such as family counseling, parent training and child abuse i prevention. • Health and Wellness. Programs that provide direct medical and health-related services to children, pregnant women and women with infants. • Child Enrichment and Education. Programs that enrich the lives of children through 0 educational and recreational services as well as support for education of developmentally disabled children. 0 • Alternative Homes for Children. Programs that provide temporary and permanent homes for children whose parents are unwilling or unable to care for them. • Safety and Justice. Programs that protect children who are victims of child abuse, respond to children acting outside the confines of the law and promote adherence to the law. • Integrated Services. Collaborative efforts to improve the well being of children and/or families which cross programmatic categories or are multi-departmental. Tables, Figures and Charts provide an overview of the Children's Budget: -� Table 1, provides a summary listing of programs by service category, department and expenditures. • Tables 2 and 3, Top 20 Programs, are a guide to the relative allocation of resources. -� Table 4 summarizes expenditures by Department. Figures 1 and 2 break out relative expenditures, total and net, by service • category. 4 Chart 1 and Figure 3 show programs and expenditures by target, i.e., children, parents or families. 4 Chart 2 and Figure 4 show programs and expenditures by type of service, • i.e., early intervention/prevention, crisis/safety net and remediation/self- sufficiency. -� Chart 3 shows, by service category, the level of discretion the Board of Supervisors has over programs. -� Chart 4 lists all programs by the five community outcomes in the Children's Report Card. i E ld like to extend our appreciation to all departmental staff who n integral role in creating this document. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS • Tables and Figures Table 1 Summary of Children & Family Service Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Table 2 Top 20 Programs by Gross Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Table 3 Top 20 Programs by Net County Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Table 4 Gross Expenditures and Net County Cost by Department . . . . . . . . . . . vi Figure 1 Gross Expenditures by Service Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Figure 2 Net County Cost by Service Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . viii • Chart 1 Programs by Client Target . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Figure 3 Gross Expenditures and Net County Cost by Client Target . . . . . . . . . . x Chart 2 Programs by Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Figure 4 Gross Expenditures and Net County Cost by Type of Service . . . . . . . xii Chart 3 Programs by Level of Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Chart 4 Programs By Community Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Basic Needs 1. Child Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Emergency Food and Shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 • 3. Food and Shelter Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. Food Stamps/Food Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Homeless Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Neighborhood Preservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Nutrition Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Nutrition Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Public Housing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Section 8 Housing Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. Youth Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Economic Stability and Self-Sufficiency 1. Adult Economically Disadvantaged Employment Training . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. Child Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. Child Support Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 • 5. Dislocated Worker Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Family and Consumer Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 • 7. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Family Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ` 10. Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11. Income Maintenance . . . . . . . . . 24 12. Independent Living Skills (ILS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13. Job Training/Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 14. Summer Youth Employment & Training Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 15. Summer Youth Jobs Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 16. Youth Economically Disadvantaged Employment/Training . . . . . . . . . . 29 Family Functioning 1. Central County Child & Youth Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2. Child Abuse Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 • 3. Child Abuse Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4. Contracted Children Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5. East County Children's Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6. Family Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7. Family Preservation and Support Program - Federal . . . . . . . . ; . . . 37 8. Family Preservation - State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9. Family Reunification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10. Family Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 11. Family Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 12. Intensive Intermittent Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 13. Violence Prevention Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 14. West Contra Costa County Children's Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 15. Young Adult Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Health & Wellness 1. Black Infant Health Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2. Born Free . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3. California Children's Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4. Center for Health in North Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Child Health and Disability Prevention Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 .6. Child Health Screening Clinics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7. Chronic Disease/Injury Prevention Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8. EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening and Treatment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 9. Healthy Start - Pittsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 10. Healthy Start - Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 11. High Risk Infant Follow-Up Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 12.. Hospital and Emergency Care Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 13. Immunization Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 14. Juvenile Hall Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 i 15. Outpatient Discovery Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 16. Physician Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 17. Prenatal Care Guidance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 18. Public Health Dental Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 19. Substance Abuse Intervention and Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 20. Teen Health/School Based Clinics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 21. Youth Institutional Mental Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Child Enrichment and Education 1. AB3632 Mental Health Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2. After School Program - George Miller Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3. Cal-Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4. Center-based Infant Program - George Miller Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 • 5. Child Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6. County Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 7. Developmental Disabilities Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 8. Families for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 9. Home-based Infant Program - George Miller Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 ' 10. Juvenile Community Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 11. Recreation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 12. Summer of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 13. Youth At-Risk Prevention Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 14. Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Alternative Homes for Children 1. Adoptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2. Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3. Foster Care/Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4. Foster Home Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5. Options for Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6. Permanent Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Safety/Justice 1. County General Patrol and Contract City Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2. Domestic Violence Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3. Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4. Juvenile and Dependent Children Legal Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 5. Juvenile Delinquency and Dependency Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6. Juvenile/Sexual Assault Team and Special Enforcement Unit (Narcotics and Vice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7. Juvenile Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 8. Juvenile Probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 • 0 9. Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 102 10. Out-of-Home Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 11. Physical Evidence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 12. Public Defender and Alternate Defender Office (ADO) - Juvenile Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 13. SafeFutures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Integrated Services 1 Bay Point Wellness Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 2. Family Service Center - Say Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 3., Family Service Center - North Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4. Partners in Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 5. Summit Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 • • i • • Table 1. Summary of Children and Family Service Programs Service Program Name Department Gross Financing Net County Cost Cat o Expenditures Child Nutrition Community Services $ 931,123 $ 931,123 $ Emergency Food&Shefter Community Dev. $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - Food&Shefter Contracts Community Dev. $ 837,950 $ 837,950 $ - Food Stamps Social Service $ 5,985,477 $ 5,087,655 $ 897,822 Homeless Program Heath Services $ 525,000 $ 525,000 $ - • Neighborhood Preservation Building Inspection $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ - Nutrftion Education Cooperative Ext. $ 143,064 $ 133,307 $ 9,757 Nutrition Education Health Services $ 801000 $ 80,000 $ - Public Housing Program Housing Authority $ 2,236,024 $ 2,236,024 $ - �� Section 8 Housing Housing Authority $ 39,733,691 $ 39,733,691 $ - WIC Health Services $ 1,791,370 $ 1,791,370 $ - Youth Shelters lCommunity Dev. $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ - TOTAL $52,941,199 $52,033,620 $907;579 Adult Training PIC $ 998,250 $ 998,250 $ - Child Care Social Service $ 2,023,902 $ 1,967,721 $ 56,181 Child Development Community Services $ 5,186,218 $ 5,186,218 $ - Child Support Enforce District Attorney $ 13,143,587 $ 13,143,587 Dislocated Worker PIC $ 802,000 $ 802,000 $ - Family&Consumer Mgt Cooperative Ext. $ 66,419 $ 37,147 $ 29,272 Family Self Sufficiency Housing Authority $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - • Family Support Community Dev. $ 18,500 $ 18,500 GAIN Social Service $ 9,002,221 $ 7,670,390 $ 1,331,831 Head Start Community Services $ 6,683,543 $ 6,641,223 $ 42,320 Income Maintenance Social Service $ 113,917,233 $ 108,943,469 $ 4,973,764 Independent Living Social Service $ 291,634 $ 291,684 $ - • Job Training Community Dev. $ 494,500 $ 494,500 $ - • Summer Youth PIC $ 1,621,000 $ 1,621,000 $ - Summer Youth Jobs PIC $ 26,500 $ 26,500 $ - Youth Employ PIC $ 710,000 $ 710,0001 $ - TOTAL: $ 155,035,557 $ 148,602,189 ::$: 6,433,368 Cent.County Child Svcs Heafth Services $ 837,000 $ 379,000 $ 458,000 Child Abuse Prevention Social Service $ 212,408 $ 212,408 $ - Child Abuse Support Svcs Community Dev. $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ - Contracted Children's Svcs Health Services $ 5,164,000 $ 1,660,000 $ 3,504,000 E.Co.Children's Ment HRh Heafth Services $ 628,000 $ 282,000 $ 346,000 Family Maintenance Social Service $ 2,706,207 $ 2,146,979 $ 559,228 • Family Preservation-Fed Social Service $ 470,971 $ 47,971 $ - Family Preservation-State Social Service $ 1,066,404 $ 746,483 $ 319,921 Family Reunification Social Service $ 4,017,908 $ 3,187,621 $ 830,287 Family Services Community Dev. $ 47,000 $ 47,000 $ Family Support Community Dev. $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - Intensive Intermittant Intery Heafth Services $ 606,000 $ 606,000 $ - Violence Prevent Community Dev. $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ - WCCC Children's Services Health Services $ 1,130,000 $ 514,000 $ 616,000 Young Adult Services Heafth Services $ 550,0001$ 275,0001$ 275,000 TOTAL $17,475 898 $10,567,462 $6,908,436 1 Service Program Name Department Gross Financing Net County Cost Cat o Expenditures Black Infant Health Project Health Services $ 136,375 $ 136,375 $ - Bom Free Health Services $ 490,000 $ 428,000 $ 62,000 California Children's Svcs Health Services $ 4,800,535 $ 3,779,387 $ 1,021,148 i1N Center for Health N.Rich Health Services $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - Child Health&Disability Health Services $ 1,919,001 $ 1,299,335 $ 619,666 Child Health Clinics Health Services $ 314,109 $ 216,547 $ 97,562 Chronic Disease Prevent Health Services $ 1,592,136 $ 1,131,482 $ 460,654 EPSDT Health Services $ 1,142,000 $ 1,142,000 $ Healthy Start-PittsburgHealth Services $ 186,870 $ 140,152 $ 46,718 Healthy Start-Richmond Health Services $ 218,708 $ 179,341 $ 39,367 High Risk Infant Follow Up Health Services $ 459,860 $ 251,587 $ 208,273 Hospital&Emergency Care Health Services $ 48,601,000 $ 47,492,000 $ 1,109,000 Immunization Program Health Services $ 1,080,170 $ 796,393 $ 283,777 Juvenile Hall Medical Svcs Health Services $ 670,000 $ 670,000 $ - Outpatient Discovery Ctrs Health Services $ 197,000 $ 197,000 $ Physician Services Health Services $ 13,473,000 $ 12,191,000 $ 1,282,000 Prenatal Care Guidance Health Services $ 300,239 $ 167,849 $ 132,390 Pub Health Dental Program Health Services $ 168,986 $ 98,576 $ 70,410 Subs Abuse Intervention Health Services $ 2,286,000 $ 2,213,000 $ 73,000 Teen Health Health Services $ 119,062 $ 18,490 $ 100,572 Youth Inst.Ment.Health Health Services $ 230,000 1 $ - Is 230,000 TOTAL` $78435,051 $ 72,598514: $: 5,836,537 AB 3632 MH Pr ram Health Services $ 1,234,000 $ 775,000 $ 459,000 After School-G.Miller Ctrs Health Services $ 420,000 $ 420,000 $ - -� Cal-Learn Social Service $ 837,386 $ 814,527 $ 22,859 Center-Based Infant Prog Health Services $ 545,000 $ 535,000 $ 10,000 Child Development Community Dev. $ 175,140 $ 175,140 $ - • County Library County Library $ 2,391,551 $ 2,391,551 $ - Developmental Disabilities Health Services $ 47,904 $ - $ 47,904 Families for Literacy County Library $ 32,149 $ 32,149 $ - Home-Based Infant Prog Health Services $ 185,000 $ 185,000 $ - Juv Community Svcs Pro' Probation $ 306,749 $ 141,820 $ 164,929 Recreation Program Community Dev. $ 26,200 $ 26,200 $ - Summer of Service PIC $ 37,940 $ 37,940 $ - Youth-at-Risk Prevention Community Dev. $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ - Youth Development Cooperative Ext. $ 154,990 $ 114,459 $ 40,531 TOTAL $ 6,396,009 $ 5,650,786 $` 745.223' Adoptions Social Service $ 2,851,300 $ 2,851,300 $ - • Foster Care Social Service $ 20,695,602 $ 13,258,822 $ 7,436,780 Foster Care/Disturbed Child Social Service $ 2,134,458 $ 853,783 $ 1,280,675 Foster Home Licensing Social Service $ 651,248 $ 594,644 $ 56,604 • Options for Recovery Social Service $ 391,363 $. 313,091 Is 78,272 Permanent Placement Social Service Is 5,136,296 $ 4,074,898 88 $ 1,061,3 TOTAL $ 31,860,262 $ 21`,946,538' $' 9,913,729 Co Gen Patrol&Cont Cities Sheriff $ 10,753,140 $ 2,688,285 $ 8,064,855 Domestic Violence Unit Sheriff $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Emergency Response Social Service $ 8,242,901 $ 6,539,534 $ 1,703,367 Juv&Depend Child Legal County Counsel $ 722,412 $ 561,999 $ 160,413 Juv,Delinquency Court Coor Trial Courts $ 750,000 $ 404,250 $ 345,750 Juv/Sexual Assault Team Sheriff $ 6,451,881 $ 4,838,910 $ 1,612,971 Juvenile Hall Probation $ 7,859,153 $ 885,952 $ 6,973,201 Juvenile Probation Probation $ 7,309,043 $ 2,353,080 $ 4,955,963 Orin Allen Rehab Facility Probation $ 1,852,948 $ 1,002,230 $ 850,718 Out-of-Home Placement Probation $ 4,669,833 $ 2,742,633 $ 1,927,200 • Physical Evidence Analysis Sheriff $ 65,000 . $ 35,000 $ 30,000 Public Defender-Juv Div Public Defender is 1,367,755 1$ 42,125 1$ 1,325,630 SafeFutures Criminal Justice Agcy $ 1,610,000 1 $ 1,510,000 $ 100,OOD TOTAL. $. 51;854,066 " $ 23,803,998«$ 28,060068 1{ Service program Name Department Gross Financing Net County Cost Cat o Expend res Bay Point Wellness Center Health Services $ 317,380 $ 110,052 $ 207,328 . Fam Svc Ctr-Bay Point SIT $ 953,956 $ 723,634 $ 230,322 Fam Svc Mr.-N.Rich SIT $ 852,064 $ 639,671 $ 212,393 Partners in Health lHeafth Services $ 201,422 $ 201,422 $ - Summit Center Heafth Services $ 1,021,477 1 $ 819,4771 $ 202,000 TOTAL: $3 346,299 $2494,256 $852,043 CHILDREN AND FAMILY.SERVICES TOTAL $397;344,346` $337,697,363 $59,646963 iii TABLE 3. Top 20 Programs by Net County Cost Rank Program Name Department Net County Cost #1 � ........................ Co. Gen Patrol & Cont.Cities Sheriff $ 8,064,855 ......................... ............. .......... #2 Foster Care Social Service $ 7,436,780 #3 Juvenile Hall Probation $ 6,973,201 .......... ....... ........... ........... ....................... Income Maintenance Social Service $ 4,973,764 • #5 Juvenile Probation Probation $ 4,955,963 ... . ....... ..... Contracted Children's Svcs Health Services $ 3,504,000 #7 Out-of-Home Placement Probation $ 1,927,200 • #8 : Emergency Response Social Service $ 1,703,367 #9 Juv/Sexual Assault Team Sheriff $ 1,612,971 #10 GAIN Social Service $ 1,331,831 #11 Pubic Defender - Juv Div Public Defender $ 1,325,630 #12 Physician Services Health Services $ 1,282,000 #13 Foster Care/Disturbed Child Social Service $ 1,280,675 #14 Hospital & Emergency Care Health Services $ 1,109,000 • 15 Permanent Placement Social Service $ 1,061,398 .#161 California Children's Svcs Health Services $ 1,021,148 917 Food Stamps Social Service $ 897,822 #18 • Orin Allen Rehab Facility Probation $ 850,718 #19 Family Reunification Social Service $ 830,287 #20 Child Health & Disability Health Services $ 619,666 NET COUNTY COST OF TOP 20 PROGRAMS $ 52,762,276 • NET COUNTY COST OF REMAINING 82 PROGRAMS $ 6,884,707 • iv 0 • TABLE 3. Top 20 Programs by Net County Cost Rank Program Name Department Net County Cost � #1 Co. Gen Patrol & Cont.Cities Sheriff $ 8,064,855 ............. . ..... . ............... ........ .......... .. ......... #2.. Foster Care Social Service $ 7,436,780 #3 Juvenile Hall Probation $ 6,973,201 .................. .. ......................... ...... ................ • Income Maintenance Social Service $ 4,973,764 #5 Juvenile Probation Probation $ 4,955,963 #6 Contracted Children's Svcs Health Services $ 3,504,000 #7 Out-of-Home Placement Probation $ 1,927,200 48 Emergency Response Social Service $ 1,703,367 #9 Juv/Sexual Assault Team Sheriff $ 1,612,971 #10 GAIN Social Service $ 1,331,831 � #11 Pubic Defender - Juv Div Public Defender $ 1,325,630 #12 physician Services Health Services $ 1,282,000 #13 Foster Care/Disturbed Child Social Service $ 1,280,675 r #14 Hospital & Emergency Care Health Services $ 1,109,000 15 Permanent Placement Social Service $ 1,061,398 #16 California Children's Svcs Health Services $ 1,021,148 #17 Food Stamps Social Service $ 897,822 • 418 Orin Allen Rehab Facility Probation $ 850,718 #19 Family Reunification Social Service $ 830,287 #20 Child Health & Disability Health Services $ 619,666 • NET COUNTY COST OF TOP 20 PROGRAMS $ 52,762,276 NET COUNTY COST OF REMAINING 82 PROGRAMS $ 6,884,707 • v • • Table 4. Gross Expenditures and Net County Costs by Department Gross Expenditures Net County Costs Department $ % $ Building Inspection $ 650,000 <1% • Community Development $ 1,668,790 <1% $ - - Community;;Service $ 12,800,884 ; 3% <1 /o$; ° Cooperative Extension $ 364,473 <1% $ 68,302 <1% Coordinated Trial Courts $ 750,000. <1% $ 345,750 <1% • _ County Counsel $ 722,412 <1% $ 160,413 <1% County Library $ 2,423;700 <1% $' Criminal Justice Agency $ 1,610,000 <1% $ 100,000 <1% • District Attorney $ 13,143,587 , 3% $ Health Service $ 93,718,604 24% $ 11,961,769 20% Housing Authority, $ 42,0191715 11% $ - - Private Industry Council $ 4,195,690 1% $ - - Probation $ 21,997;726 6% ° 1.4,872,01,1;'i 25/0 Public Defender & ADO $ 1,367,755 <1% $ 1,325,630 2% Sheriff $ .1714701021 4% $ 9,707,826 16% • Service Integration (CAO) $ 1,806,020 <1% $ 442,715 1% Social:Service :i$: :206 898,9, ;35% TOTAL $ 397,344,346 $ 59,635,725 • • vi. • • Figure 1 Gross Expenditures by Service Category Safety&Justice Child Enrichment& 13% Alternative Homes Integrated Services Education 8% 2% Basic Needs Health 8 Wellness '_ �� ��1 '��' 13% • p Family • Functioning 4% Economic Stability/Self Sufficiency 39% • $39793449346 • Vil • • Figure 2 Net County Cost by Service Category Family Economic Health & Functioning Wellness 13% Stability/Self Child 9% Sufficiency Enrichment& g% Education . 1% Basic Needs .a_. 1% Alternative Homes . , 14% Y yp ° Integrated Safety & Justice Services 52% • • $5996469963 • Viii • • rn c m rn a c0 o H a • £ T y a aci L (0 C m CO CO N .E E . a o a d d a U _ N y 2 LL JEw $ M E N A °' N c 4 o LL at c 1! o a c • y a E E m m �. a = CO LL S 2 Z e d d L 66a 0 o a = c m Z aci a c c a y a g a c O m 0 °' E ~ c O m > c '� o N > io `w •� a E c N N a a`� c a w > aZi E Q Q U o O — a. j lL oa m Qr =' N 0) . cw N U o CO� o E LL E i ,o � ' C: c > i w N o c ot Sa i acm ��LyZaci cOCN� .vLd 00 mLL E B � O wc�' rn E a E12 vO N jn v O N O O a. O N L r D n zz U a O LL E�dg° CL 0 a a w m N Q�j U� U U V ..0 rzL o c a E2. aNi a aci o N E N r «' W c E a a; N 'L m o v o a a �v y = c o can uai d Z n U c c L c w m � o m m wcn CD •0.y- o LL v v E E $ a a 2 o ian a v n v a o v • N CO la. L lL U- . V d . N d 7 U J d O= o7 a �' �' U' V' �' �' e`a.. Q U co n T m m m m m m c c Z v v v v c 3 > in m E E E E m v E a O O O O O O a s a L t t t o o a a a a a a a Q Q Q m U U U U U U U U' U to U U U U.- UU O w 2 LL -'LL LL U. O 0 cc ca w w N r N ca �n/� E m V/ N %j d.'O N F- O U } a g 'o r o f rnt c a a Oa N 3 `aE = N= r O C W EE C c L UL N • a c m a m o =cc L •� T m d (D (D E C7 U m E �o RCU N c w c E Co.: >,E ` w O d a O m a a c c rn c ' : a a • V a 0 v n .o a a c c a c a v a v_ 4) c.g o -oc cn aNi `w v` a "a' _ a o `w t °/ 4 m o coi w r J O aNi E c g c E M o a -o v c� c � v o aci a: ZU y 2 2 d ` ` y .. a s •c S a ._ a 5 oEc ° `ma .c 'Ua S . ° E a o U m U a = c 2 z t a a m a E a c w °� m°' a U. 9 w m m' o = r s S2vm d. E c o< a Q Q � U U U U.00- U U .ULLOww1- w ,LLO LL: :� � � 4: ix Figure 3. Breakdown of Gross Expenditures and Net County Cost • Targeted Primarily at Children, Families and Parents • Primarily Children 25.496 • Primarily Parents 4.796 GROSS';EXPENDYTURES ` a� $39:713 Million • 1 Primarily Families 69.9 • • Primarily Families 37.0% Primarily Parents 4.2% • STET COUNTY COST • �- $59 b 1Vlxllxon Primarily Children 58.7% X • c y w •a CL aci o w • w N m o w v CL aZi �' E `-' m N Z o a w c 9 E o c O fn V •rp Y ip 1 V 7 m-o o U t ��1 E y " c C E w rn o N c w a U cmi �. L° c ` .LL E n Z F- Q W Li LL U- C9 -5 � d y U y N •� `1 '� r > '.•O Y O U o F(! aZi �` d > E ': to t �o C) Q N ..� d cL p rn m Q a c a o w °� . U �.: a c vID 0 (D Z `m w C Q. II• m �j -m a O N C D. w .N t m w O N Q (D W S v 'w w io m 0 d) w Q a in N o U v ai g ca Z a x x a ° c o c amici w c W, `w o m V ui v in r o :° w v w w w w m c w x _ c m !9 2: O 2 c U,'c E Q c m m (n V) E aci m aci w m w w ¢ 4 a E a N o v c z z V) v � CD > > o 5 w t r > > aoi o 0 0 0 0 : rn z = 5 0 0 0 0 a a a a a (L to U L •E CLpaE G ` .a o. o cwi c� m o v d Z c w v E & a' Z w w ) N L N a U w m w a t E U m N to w v $' m E U v o E o c y N q� : c a d w m m c t' c Z o w U w c @ o o:: C y E a L o c U r W Ga v o U N aci w v Om a L c a � m c � o v O U - w 2 N o w x w o is v v d v m d a a 0. N c f w 3Aa U..:. m w a 3 c o W to U U U CO d w 4' co U a $ m :: m` Q Z W w a� U ;rn rn a 'N w ai IV O o w c c c c E m m a w to a 8 E ' E w m v - m m w w w c t t d o o m w E E a $ o `� o o o N C ¢ ¢ Q ao U U U "U U U U U U 0 w x W w w LLi' LL LL LL LL x x o a O - � c c m Mi o a y C ICU m C N C w M c c E o L m w v o g ami m a s- E E v y o a y t :. L d LL a w: y w o � . x a to ,� N o : 0 c L U `O ce w tW m _ ac wm > Z5 co o ` a tC WaD w C om. m pper E ::E E • N 'O w 'N 7 N w.. W j ..7 ? C _ G 04w z z a a; w to m to m > E c � 1 _ U_ N j o Z Z v O a O E o U R o i� aoi U c w m Z' j ti c ^ a rn L> a 4a 3E o Cl. • aci D aci a a c c ? c c: E o L° N U U E c o. N LL c E c N o r t cwi .4) c w Z r a ` ; c U O m c =: > c R E W N Q U + m [ Z ge A w g a w x w a`� w o a m m o ,6 a m W m ' m m N y c Y LL J ¢ x x $ a. Z E 2. �. �, >, .LT c c. _ o o > E E`er E E E E E E m m = 'O m L' L L '� L L O '.w M �p:V �p m m m' m 'm w w w m im U ,U. U U a. U 'U, U ,:0,. LL [L a' LL U. LL LL_ LL „LL x;,:, x'_..: x =.: • XI Figure 4. Breakdown of Gross Expenditures and Net County Cost • Programs by Primary Type of Service • a Prevention/Early Infervendon 8.9% . Remedl&V6oB6ufieknoy 5.0% �F M safety NevCH518 88.1% • • T r C+z Preventlon/Earl Intervennon 8.1% Safety Net/Crlola 88.4% • Rernedlal/Be"ufllclenc 4.5% X11 • • CHART 3 PROGRAMS BY LEVEL OF DISCRETION AND SERVICE CATEGORY • Service Discretionary Some Limited No Category Program . Program Program Program Discretion Discretion Discretion TOTAL • Basic Needs 5 2 2 3 12 Econ Stability/ 3 0 4 9 16 Self Sufficiency Family Functioning 4 8 1 2 15 • Health &Wellness 0 7 14 0 21 Child Enrichment/ 7 4 1 2 14 Education Alternative 1 0 1 4 6 Homes Safety/Justice 4 0 7 2 13 Integrated Services 1 4 0 0 5 • TOTAL 25 25 30 22 102 PERCENTAGE 25% - 25% 29% 22% 101%* *More than Definitions of Levels of Discretion 100% due to Discretionary-Programs which the Board of Supervisors has discretion to modify or eliminate. rounding. Some Discretion-Programs which the Board of Supervisors has some discretion to modify but are • limited by Federal and State laws,regulations,court orders or restrictions on the use of revenues. This category is distinguished from"Limited Discretion"in terms of degree,such as an activity being required but service level not defined. Limited Discretion-Programs which the Board of Supervisors has virtually no discretion to modify because of Federal and State laws,regulations,court orders or restrictions on the use of revenue. This category is distinguished from the fust in that a service level or match requirement is less precise. • No Discretion-Programs which the Board of Supervisors has no discretion to modify because of Federal or State laws,regulations,court orders or restrictions on the use of revenue. Xiii • Chart 4 Programs by Community Outcomes(1997 Children's Report Card) .� w CS _ N Cn N 41 o t i- � s' 7 v� 0Q N Q L C)r 0 � � °� � � d t o 'v PROGRAM �, � u u, LL j v a • AB 3632 MH Program ✓ ✓ Adoptions ✓ ✓ ✓ Adult Training ✓ After School-G.Miller Ctrs J Bay Point Wellness Center J ✓ ✓ Black Infant Health Project J ✓ Born Free J ✓ Cal-Learn ✓ ./ J California Children's Svcs J Cent. County Child Svcs ✓ J J Center-Based Infant Pro ✓ J ✓ Center for Health N.Rich ✓ ✓ Child Abuse Prevention ✓ J ✓ Child Abuse Support Svcs J J J Child Care ✓ ✓ Child Development J ✓ ✓ Child Development J ✓ Child Health & DisabilityJ ✓ Child Health Clinics ✓ ✓ J Child Nutrition ✓ ✓ Child Support Enforce ✓ ✓ Chronic Disease Prevent ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Co.Gen Patrol &Cont.Cities Sheriff Contracted Children's Svcs J ✓ County Library ✓ ./ ✓ • Developmental Disabilities ✓ Dislocated Worker Employment ✓ Domestic Violence Unit J ✓ E.Co. Children's Mental Hlth ✓ ./ Emergency Food & Shelter J ✓ J Emergency Response J J EPSDT ✓ ✓ Fam Svc Ctr- Bay Point J ✓ J ✓ ✓ Fam Svc Ctr- N. Rich ✓ J J J J AV i • Programs by Community Outcomes(1997 Children's Report Card) U Q � L V j CL L 4- L O } O 't7 > LO Q N Q L } In } OS t Cn U C } N N L O SEX j N 0 V A s s rZ ,° c U ° o 0 PROC�R M Q ,a Q � w v Families for Literac ✓ ✓ Family&Consumer Mgt 1 ✓ ✓ Family Maintenance ✓ ✓ J Family Preservation- Fed J J J Family Preservation - State ✓ ✓ Family Reunification J J Family Self Sufficiency ✓ ✓ • Family Services ✓ ✓ J Family Support J J Family Support ✓ J Food &Shelter Contracts J J J Food Stamps ✓ J ✓ Foster Care J J J • Foster Care/Disturbed Child J J J ✓ Foster Home LicensingJ ✓ ✓ GAIN J J Head Start J ✓ J J Healthy Start- Pittsbur ✓ J Healthy Start- Richmond J J High Risk Infant Follow U J J • Home-Based Infant Prog ✓ J Homeless Program J ✓ ✓ J Hospital &Emergency Care J Immunization Program J ✓ Income Maintenance J ✓ Independent Livin ✓ ✓ a Intensive Intermittent Intery J ✓ Job Training ./ Juv & Depend Child Legal J J J Juv Community Service J J Juv Delinquency Court J J J Juv/Sexual Assault Team ./ J Juvenile Hall • Juvenile Hall Medical Svcs J Juvenile Probation ✓ ./ J Neighborhood Preservation J J xv • • Programs by Community Outcomes(1997 Children's Report Card) w J 0 c O = -a L } y Z1 0 Q Q L S (�V _ � a r , v z y _rn • c t C CL } d E s s a p 0 0 E c PROGRAM � � Q u- w '� v I- Q Nutrition Education J J J If Nutrition Education ✓ J J If Options for RecoveryJ J J Orin Allen Rehab Facilit ✓ J ✓ Out-of-Home Placement J ✓ Outpatient Discovery Ctrs J J Partners in Health J J ✓ J Permanent Placement J ✓ J • Physical Evidence Analysis J J J Physician Services J Prenatal Care Guidance J J Pub Health Dental Program_ J Pubic Defender-Juv Div ✓ J Public Housing Program ✓ J J • Recreation Program J J Safe Futures ✓ J ✓ J Section 8 Housing J ✓ J Subs Abuse Intervention J J J Summer of Service J J Summer Youth ✓ J ✓ • Summer Youth Jobs J J Summit Center ✓ J ' J J Teen Health J J Violence Prevent J ✓ J WCCC Children's Services J ✓ WIC J J ✓ Young Adult Services J J J • Youth-at-Risk Prevention J J Youth Development ✓ J J Youth EmployJ J J Youth Inst. Mental. Health J J Youth Shelters ✓ J • xvi • Basic Needs 00� li ,I This rage Left 4 Intentionally Blank 4 '7 i i Basic Needs 7. Child Nutrition Community Services Description: Provides free breakfast, lunch and snacks to children enrolled in County operated Child Development and Head Start programs at fourteen locations in West and Central Contra Costa County. Optional program. Goals: To continue providing healthy meals to the children participating in the County's programs, thereby 0 improving their physical well-being. To also provide nutrition education to the children, staff and parents to assist them in planning and preparing healthy meals. No. of Clients: More than 1,150 children, 97% from households with incomes at or below 170% of poverty level. Outcome Indicators: Increase in overall health of children served. Decrease in nutrition related diseases such as anemia. Outcome Data: 580,000 meals provided to children. Monthly menu with nutritional information is available to all families in West County. Gross Expenditures: $ 931,123 Financing: $ 931,123 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Administration for Children and Families,State Department of Education Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget 0 Budget Reference: Community Services Department - Child Nutrition Division Initiatives: The Central Kitchen at Brookside Drive is now fully centralized; the last two old and inefficient kitchens were closed Fall of 1996. All West County program meals are prepared in the Central Kitchen. Upgrade of the kitchen has taken place over the last four years and has been funded by City of Richmond CDBG ($127,000), County CDBG ($173,281), Head Start ($6,455) and Child Development ($7,055). System Savings: By providing free meals to all enrolled children, Child Nutrition helps enrolled families stretch their limited food dollars. By providing healthy meals, the program helps children realize their full mental and physical potential, r 1 as well as allowing parents the opportunity to work or participate in job training. Interrelationships: Child nutrition provides appropriate nutrition information to children, staff and families. Staff is given the tools and information needed to incorporate nutrition into the curriculum. The Division works with child care staff to assist parents with referrals to WIC for health concerns and to food pantries for food access problems. 2. Emergency Food and Shelter • Community Development - Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund Description: Provides meals and emergency shelter vouchers to children and families. Some program discretion. Goals: Provide mitigation to communities affected by nearby landfills and ancillary solid waste facilities; improve the health and safety status of children and families; Increase the number of children and families with adequate basic housing. • No. of Clients: 650 Outcome Indicators: More families with basic nutritional and housing needs met. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 15,000 Financing: $ 15,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources Keller Community Landfill Community Assistance Mitigation Fees Budget Basis: Actual - 8.1% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Community Development Department / Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust Fund 3. Food and Shelter Contracts Community Development Department - Redevelopment and Housing Description: Provides funds for new housing construction and rehabilitation (through low or no interest loans) and for emergency housing. Funds are also granted to non-profit organizations to provide services to alleviate housing discrimination and support services to households experiencing housing and 2 1 0 homeless problems. (11 programs) Discretionary program. Description: Allocates funds to non-profit organizations for 2 programs that provide nutritionally sound meals to low-income people. Discretionary program. Goals: Increase the number of children and families with basic housing; Improve the health and safety status of children and families through nutrition. 0 No. of Clients: Housing: 1,155 (units/persons) Food: 1,109 (persons) Outcome Indicators: Construction of new housing and rehabilitation of existing housing. Outcome Data: Increase in affordable housing stock. Fewer cases of • housing discrimination and homelessness. Gross Expenditures: $ 837,950 Financing: $ 837,950 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 Budget Basis: 21% of CDBG Grant Budget Reference: Community Development Department- Redevelopment System Savings: Less reliance on public housing Interrelationships: Food programs work in conjunction with each other. r 4. Food Stamps/Food Distribution Social Service Department Description: Provides food stamps and food commodities to low-income 0 households. Mandated program. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children through nutrition. No. of Clients: 44,000 adults and children, 1996 monthly average Outcome Indicators: Increased levels of nutrition; Reductions in chronic health problems associated with malnutrition. Outcome Data: 18,000 households served each month Gross Expenditures: $ 5,985,477 Financing: $ 5,087,655 Net County Cost: $ 897,822 r 3 1 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: 100% (Budget is for program administration only; food stamps are given directly to recipients so that the cost of food stamp aid does not flow through the County's budget system) Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Food Stamps Initiatives: The department is developing a workfare program for able bodied 18 to 50 year olds who would otherwise lose food stamps after three months under the federal welfare reform bill. This effort will allow more time for food stamp recipients to secure employment and become self sufficient. System Savings: Providing workfare opportunities for food stamp recipients will significantly reduce the use of community food banks and soup kitchens. 5. Homeless Program Health Services Department - Homeless Program Description: Provides emergency shelter, transitional housing, shelter plus care and case management services to the County's homeless population. Some program discretion. Goals: Increase the number of children and families with adequate basic housing. No. of Clients: 160 families per month Outcome Indicators: More shelters for homeless families; Reduction in number of families living on the streets. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 525,000 Financing: $ 525,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Misc. Donations Budget Basis: 33% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Homeless Program Initiatives: Through HUD funding, three Multi-Service Centers have been established in Central, East and West County. The Centers will provide services to homeless families to improve regional coordination to connect those in need of services with available services. In connection with the Multi-Service Centers, the Homeless Hotline is now a program component of the services that Crisis and Suicide Intervention offers through its 24-hour Hotline operation. The Hotline will be switching to an 800 number which increase access for homeless families. The 4 • line is answered 24 hours a day and the caller is connected to a person who can then refer them to the appropriate services or to a Multi-Service Center. Interrelationships: Through HUD funding, the Shelter Plus Care program has received additional funding that will support ten households over the five-year grant period. The housing will target individuals and families who are dually diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and a substance abuse or mental health disability. 6. Neighborhood Preservation Program • Building Inspection Department Description: Provides no interest or low interest loans for low and moderate income families to do repairs to bring their homes up to code. Discretionary program. Goals: Increase the number of children & families with adequate basic housing No. of Clients: 50 per program year Outcome Indicators: Increase in number of homes meeting code specifications. Outcome Data: Average of 35-40 loans are funded per program year; 50 loans are signed during program year. Gross Expenditures: $650,000 Financing: $650,000 « Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Community Development Block Grant Fund ($250,000) & Program Income ($400,000) Budget Basis: Estimated -20% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference; Community Development Block Grant Fund a Initiatives: Outreach to public through video on CCN and bus shelter advertisements. System Savings: Homes rehabilitated help remove blight and building code violations from neighborhoods. Interrelationships: Work with Code Enforcement Officers to offer assistance with funding to code violators for repairs of public nuisances. Work with Community Development for interpretation of land use permits. 5 • 7. Nutrition Education Cooperative Extension Description: Practical nutrition and food management programs for low income parents, including teen parents, mothers recovering from alcohol and drug dependence, parents enrolled in ESL classes and mothers whose children are in publicly supported child care. Programs are delivered through Cooperative Extension's USDA-funded Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program (FSNEP). The Nutrition Program also assesses needs and develops strategies to improve program delivery in allied agencies concerned with nutrition education and food safety. Discretionary program. i Goals: Improve health and welfare of low income children and families through improved nutrition and food handling practices. No. of Clients: 300 per year graduated from face-to-face EFNEP and FSNEP programs; 150 additional clients in short term classes • 22,000 Food Stamp recipients and other clients of the Department of Social Service viewed nutrition and health education videos in waiting rooms. Outcome Indicators: Improved food consumption patterns. Outcome Data: According to pre-& post-test surveys conducted: 97.6% of EFNEP/FSNEP graduates demonstrated food consumption improvements on 24 Hour Food Recall measures. Gross Expenditure: $ 143,064 Financing: $ 133,307 (not in County system) i Net County Cost: $ 9,757 Finding Sources: State, Federal, County General Fund and grant funds. Budget Basis: Actual - 25% of County Program Budget Budget Reference: Cooperative Extension, Family Education Initiatives: The EFNEP program received a gift ($12,000) from an anonymous donor to support special efforts within the program for anemia prevention directed at preschool aged children. For this project, we produced a short video in English and Spanish accompanied by a leaders' guide and hand-out materials. This was part of an interagency cooperative campaign which included additional funding and educational materials development. System Savings: Through our teaching and the participants' adoption of 6 improved nutrition and food safety practices we contribute to better health and well being. Better health means less dependence on the health care system which for this population is provided by public institutions. We also have examples of participants who have used their graduation certificates to support successful job applications in the areas of food service. Certificates have also been used as evidence of improvement in lifestyle in cases of child custody. Interrelationships: In our face-to-face teaching we depend on good working relationships with Richmond Adult School where we teach in the ESL classes. We work with various residential and day treatment facilities for recovering mothers. We give classes in public schools and Head Start programs. We work closely with the Health Department and the Department of Social Services, especially the GAADDS program which is run through St. Vincent dePaul and Salvation Army. Our INFOVISION video education program is a joint project with the CHDP program of the Health Department and DSS. The anemia prevention project is a specific • example of interagency work with 20 public and private agency representatives. We accept referrals from various Health Department and private agency programs. 8. Nutrition Education 41 Health Services - Public Health Description: Educate AFDC families and children on healthy low cost meal planning and preparation, with a particular emphasis on low-fat meals and alternatives. Very limited program discretion. • Goals: Improved health status of children and families through increased awareness of nutrition and its effect on health. No. of Clients: Efforts are broad-based outreach and education programs which do not target clients for treatment. Outcome Indicators: Improved nutrition within community; Increased knowledge of nutritional guidelines. Outcome Data: An independent evaluation of the USDA-funded project is available. Gross Expenditures: $ 80,000 Financing: $ 80,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Funds Budget Basis: 0.25% of Recommended Budget/Allocated Budget Reference: Public Health Grants 7 Initiatives: The program, with funding from Contra Costa N and the US Department of Agriculture, produced a video series highlighting low fat, ethnic cuisine preparation. The programs have been aired on Contra Costa Cable, and videos are available in Spanish and English. They are also being shown in communities across the state and country by public and private organizations. System Savings: Improved nutrition reduces the risk of costly life-threatening diseases including coronary disease, some types of cancer and diabetes. Improved nutrition has also been shown to result in improvements in children's performance in school. • Interrelationships: All project work is planned and implemented through the Food and Nutrition Policy Consortium which includes in its membership WIC, CHDP, and Social Services, as well as community-based organizations. Joint planning maximizes the available resources while preventing duplication. 9. Public Housing Program Housing Authority Description: Provides subsidized rental housing for low and very low income families in Contra Costa County. Intervention services. No program discretion. 0 Goals: Increase the number of children and families with adequate basic housing. _ No. of Clients: 730 families Outcome Indicators: Eligible families procure public housing, housed families comply with regulations to avoid housing terminations. Outcome Data: 97% occupancy rate Gross Expenditures: $ 2,236,024 Financing: $ 2,236,024 • Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Budget Basis: Estimated -64% of Budget Budget Reference: N/A Initiatives: The Housing Authority has formed collaborations with other providers to deliver on-site services to help public housing residents increase earnings and graduate from public assistance and public housing. System Savings: Collaborations to promote self-sufficiency save public welfare dollars. Interrelationships: The Housing Authority relies on income verifications by the 8 Social Service Department for clients-in-common. 10. Section 8 Housing Assistance Housing Authority Description: Rental assistance payments for very low income families in Contra Costa County. No program discretion. • Goals: Increase the number of children and families with adequate basic housing. No. of Clients: 4,500 families Outcome Indicators: Eligible families procure assisted housing; assisted families comply with regulations to avoid assisted housing terminations. Outcome Data: 1700 families served off waiting list. Gross Expenditures: $ 39,733,691 Financing: $ 39,733,691 • Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Budget Basis: Allocated - 82% of budget Budget Reference: N/A « Initiatives: (1) HUD is developing a set of indicators of Section 8 program effectiveness and agency efficiency to be implemented in the new fiscal year. (2) The Housing Authority is forming collaborations with other service providers to help Section 8 participants increase earnings and graduate from public assistance and assisted housing. • System Savings: (1) Improved Section 8 program effectiveness and agency efficiency and achievement of program outcomes can be expected to serve more community need for housing. (2) Collaboration to promote self-sufficiency save public welfare dollars. Interrelationships: The Housing Authority relies on income verifications by the Social Service Department for clients-in-common. r 11. Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides supplemental food and nutrition education to women, 9 infants and children. Provides coupons for food to women who are pregnant, breast-feeding or within 6 months of delivery, as well as infants and children aged 1-5. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of infants, children, and mothers through nutrition. No. of Clients: 16,550/month Outcome Indicators: Improved growth in children; Prolonged breast-feeding period; Reduction of overweight children; Reduced low birthrates. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 1,791,370 Financing: $ 1,791,370 • Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 5.66% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Initiatives: State WIC Program computerized client enrollment, coupon printing, • and coupon activity reports: This computerization of local agency program activities increased clerical efficiency. Interrelationships: WIC participates in maternal and child projects/ committees: Anemia Task Force, Tobacco Prevention, CPSP Roundtable, Food and Nutrition Policy Consortium, Food for All, Breast-feeding Task Forces, Public Health Managed Care Coordinating Council, WIC Associations, and "5 A Day" Fruits & Vegetables Committee. WIC exchanges materials, outreach and services with health organizations: Planned Parenthood, Community Wellness Program, EFNEP, American Heart Association, Breast .Cancer Outreach Program, AIDS Program, Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Immunization Program, Cancer Association, United Way Workplace Prevention Program, La Leche League, Farmers' Markets, Dental Programs, Head Start, Day Care Organizations, Social Services, Battered Women's Alternatives, Healthy Tomorrows, and Prenatal Care Guidance. Service organizations provide free clothing, toothbrushes, food and toys to WIC clients: United Way, Scouts, Food Bank, Schools, and J.C. Penney's. 12. Youth Shelters Community Development Department - Redevelopment and Housing Description:lssues funds to non-profit organizations for counseling services and temporary shelter to runaway and homeless youth (1 program). Discretionary i 10 1 program. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of runaway children. No. of Clients: Unknown - no.placements to date (new program) Outcome Indicators: Fewer children living on the streets. Outcome Data: Not available • Gross Expenditures: $ 12,500 Financing: $ 12,500 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Basis: 0.3% of CDBG Grant • Budget Reference: Community Development, Community Development Block Grant • 11 Economic Stability and Se f Sufficicncy J � H 4 ��3 1' a 4 • I k.; I `a � s r f 10 k $ • II I • This Page Left Intentionally Blank • Economic Stability and Self Sufficiency • Adult Economically Disadvantaged Employment Training Private Industry Council Description: Assists economically disadvantaged adult participants in developing and obtaining employment through vocational assessment counseling, training, job search and placement, work experience, and on-the-job training. No program discretion. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of r youth and their parents. No. of Cases: 256 Outcome Indicators: 90 day employment rate and weekly earnings. Outcome Data: Minimum 58% retention rate and $283 weekly earnings. Gross Expenditures: $ 998,250 • Financing: $ 998,250 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal JTPA Title IIA Budget Basis: 55% of Program Budget Budget Reference: PIC 0 2, Child Care Social Service Department Description: The child care program consists of 4 subprograms. Very limited • program discretion: 1) State Department of Education Alternative Payment Child Care - Child care payments for children in the Child Welfare Services system. Funded by state Department of Education funds with a required county maintenance r of effort. 2) Title IV-A Child Care - This is the "working poor" child care program for those parents who are employed but at risk of going on AFDC (TANF) without child care help. Funded by state and federal funds with a required County maintenance of effort. r 15 3) Block Grant Child Care -This is the child care program for Teen Parents, special needs children and former Child Welfare Services clients. Funded by federal funds. 4) Child Care and Development Block Grant Expansion Funds - Child care for children in Child Welfare System and for families receiving AFDC (TANF). Federal Block Grant money. Goals: Improve health and safety status of children; increase number of children who succeed in school; increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of families. No. of Clients: 800 Outcome Indicators: Fewer barriers to successful job search, training and employment; more successful Child Welfare family r maintenance. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 2,023,902 Financing: $ 1,967,721 Net County Cost: $ 56,181 • Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration and Services, Child Care Initiatives: We are training specific workers to offer child care counseling and to. act as resources about child care, both for our clients and the employment services staff. In addition, we are looking for ways to strengthen the child care system and increase its ability to meet the needs of working parents and those in training for employment. System Savings: Lack of child care is the greatest barrier to steady employment for many parents. The demand for welfare payments, the juvenile court system, the child welfare system, etc. becomes less as more parents become employed and self sufficient. Interrelationships: The GAIN program is collaborating with Head Start and Child Development Programs, State Preschool at Community Services, ROP (County Department of Education), Richmond Adult School (Serra School), Housing Authority and the Child Care Council to train Head Start and State Preschool parents, especially those in GAIN, to be child care providers. We currently have two classes with a total of 28 participants. We plan to expand the program to East County in the Fall, with a goal of 200 total participants in West and East County. We also collaborate with our local child resource and referral agencies to educate parents and develop quality child care. 16 Interrelationships: The department contracts with East Bay Perinatal Council to provide ongoing case management for teen parents while our staff provides child care money. 3. Child Development Community Services Description: Provides an array of human services for families to assist them in caring for their children while they work towards achieving or maintaining self sufficiency. The largest programs are General Child Care/Title IV-A and State Preschool. The program provides 151,150 days of subsidized child care and 54,900 days of State Preschool. Discretionary program. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self-sufficiency of families; Enhance developmental opportunities for children. No, of Clients: 1050 children from 975 families Outcome Indicators: Higher family incomes; Increased rate of completion of job training by parents. Outcome Data: Not available. Gross Expenditures: $ 5,186,218 Financing: $ 5,186,218 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources: State Department of Education, Contra Costa College District Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Community Services Department - Child Development Division • Initiatives: Child Development Division is involved in a number of collaborations as follows: Child Care Teacher Training for GAIN Recipients, expansion of school- age child care services, collaboration with Head Start at three sites, CDE's Mentor Teacher and Director Training Project, Safe Start Research Project through USFO, CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing's Advancing Careers in Child Development Project, Contra Costa College District 's State Preschool Teacher Training Mini-Conference, Teacher Training Internships with the English Action Center, Balboa Acquisition Project with the Northern CA Council for the Communities, Success by Six and the County Child Care Director's Consortium. System Savings: State and Federal Funds are being used to provide child care and development services for AFDC families in job training and to subsidize child care for low-income, working parents. Enrolled children are served meals and 17 r snacks daily at no cost to families. Some mental health counseling is provided to special needs children. Children receive visual and hearing screening and some parents receive TB testing. Some centers serve as on-the-job training sites for 0 entry-level employees. Interrelationships:The Child Development Division collaborates with Head Start, the Child Nutrition Division, the Health Services Department, the Department of Social Service, the County Office of Education, the Contra Costa College District, the three community colleges, UC-Berkeley, USFO, several local school districts, the County and City of Richmond libraries, the Sheriffs Department, the City of 0 Richmond, the County and City of Richmond Community Development Departments, the County Housing Authority and various Community based agencies countywide. 4. Child Support Enforcement District Attorney Description: Provides free legal services to establish paternity, determine fair monthly child support and medical services, and insure enforcement of that support. No program discretion in program discretion in program design or scope. County may increase funding by providing County funds. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of families by insuring children and families receive the financial and medical support due to them. 0 No. of Clients: 70,000 cases per year (Note that cases do not equal clients, children or family units) Outcome Indicators: Increase in the amount of child support collected; increased program efficiency and compliance with AB 1033 measured by compliance and Tier II incentives. Outcome Data: Amount of child support collected increased from 0 $28,299,651 in FY 94-95 to $30,756,979 in FY 95-96, 42% for AFDC clients, 58% for non-aid clients. Tier II incentives are awarded to counties who are in full compliance with the 1033 audit. County's performance is rated in certain categories and improvement is rewarded with up to 3% increase in incentives. County received .5% Tier II incentives in FY 94-95, 1.5% for FY 95-96 and 2.25% for FY 96-97. Gross Expenditures: $13,143,587 (submitted for 97-98) Financing: $13,143,587 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Source: Federal and State Funds is 18 Budget Basis: 100% of Recommended Budget System Savings: Reimbursement of County Welfare funds - 1995-96 $775,000. ! Interrelationships: Welfare-all AFDC and Medi-Cal cases are referred to Family Support, by law. Hopefully, we affect their caseload by keeping border line families off welfare by establishing and enforcing child support. 5. Dislocated Worker Program Private Industry Council Description: Assists dislocated workers to become re-employed through vocational assessment and labor market analysis, retraining, job search and job placement services. No program discretion. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self-sufficiency of youth and their parents. No. of Cases: 300 Outcome Indicators: Employment rate and hourly wage at placement. Outcome Data: Minimum 75% placements and $11.81 hourly wage. Gross Expenditures: $ 802,000 Financing: $ 802,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal JTPA Title III Budget Basis: 41% of Program Budget Budget Reference: PIC 6. Family and Consumer Resource Management • Cooperative Extension Description: The mission of the Family and Consumer Resource Management program is to improve the quality of life of low income families and individuals and to promote their well-being through better management of resources. This program operates at secondary preventive levels when clientele are low-income families who are only at risk of greater economic instability and tertiary preventive levels when clientele are already homeless or experiencing other forms of grave social dysfunction. The program's advisor delivers training through workshops, newsletters, videos, etc. Discretionary program. • 19 a' Goal: Improve well-being and economic self-sufficiency of low-income families and individuals and populations at risk through better management of personal resources. 4 No. of Clients: 229 low-income families with children received face to face education. Outcome Indicators: Post-workshop evaluations assess the amount of ' knowledge gained and the intention of participants to apply knowledge in the future. In some circumstances actual outcomes may be tracked. Indicators depend on the content of the class, for example: greater economic self-sufficiency, reports of intention to budget, reports of goals for savings, etc. Outcome Data: 87% percent of respondents on post-workshop evaluations indicated that they could now plan a budget that would enable them to save money. An outcome study of one clientele group at St. Vincent dePaul indicates that the budgeting classes provided by our • staff resulted in 40% of the participants finding and keeping unsubsidized jobs, 40% increased their income, and 35% acquired stable housing. Budget Reference: Cooperative Extension, Family Education • Gross Expenditure: $66,419 Financing: $37,147 (out of County System) Net County Cost: $29,272 Finding Sources: Federal, State, County General Fund and Grant Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 75% of County Program Budget • Budget Reference: Cooperative Extension, Family Education Initiatives: LifeSmarts, a program for high school age participants that uses a game show format to engage students in learning consumer skills. System Savings: Cooperative Extension provides its educational services free to the clientele of community agencies. Agencies, such as St. Vincent dePaul can provide more integrated and comprehensive support to their clientele by using our services. Interrelationships: We work in partnership with many agencies that serve low- income, at risk population groups, including St. Vincent de Paul, UCSSO, Senior Centers, DSS, Delta 2000, homeless shelters. We provide the educational services; partner agencies provide the clientele and meeting rooms. 20 d 7. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program a Housing Authority Description: Regulated by HUD and funded by the Housing Authority, FSS provides an incentive for Section 8 participants to increase their earned household income. An amount of money equal to the increase in rent an FSS participant pays due to increased earned income is escrowed for the participant to access if the household becomes independent of pubic assistance. Prevention services. No Program discretion for 160 families required to receive FSS services in return for 160 Section 8 certificates and vouchers granted by HUD. 0 Goals: Increase education, job training, employment and earned income among FSS participants and reduce dependence on public assistance and housing assistance. No. of Cases: 150 families Outcome Indicators: Outcome Data: Escrow accounts have been created for 66 FSS participants. Gross Expenditures: $50,000 staffing plus cost of escrows paid out to participants. Financing: $ 50,000 staffing plus cost of escrows paid out to participants. Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Budget Basis: Actual - 1% of Section 8 Budget Reference: NIA System Savings: Public assistance dollars (formerly entitlements) are saved and housing assistance dollars (non-entitlements) are made available to help other families by FSS participants who accrue escrow accounts. Interrelationships: FSS collaborates with case management providers serving clients-in-common to provide case management services for FSS participants. These collaborators include the County Service Integration Teams, GAIN, the Private Industry Council and the Adult Schools of several public school districts in the County. 21 4111 8. Family Support Community Development • Description: Funds are granted to non-profit organizations to provide child care and job training classes and services to low income families. No discretion. Goals: • No. of Cases: 69 families per year Outcome Indicators: Outcome Data: Gross Expenditures: $ 18,500 • Financing: $ 18,500 Net County Cost: $ .0 Funding Sources: Budget Basis: .5% CDBG Grant Budget Reference: Community Development - Redevelopment • System Savings: Program works with AFDC parents to provide job coaching and child care 9. Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) • Social Service Department Description: Education, training and job services programs which support self sufficiency for AFDC (TANF) recipients. GAIN components include orientation and appraisal; training programs; job club/search; pre-employment preparation; on the • job training; and child care, transportation and ancillary expenses supportive services. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of families on AFDC (TANF). No. of Clients: 3300 adults, 1996 average 9 Outcome Indicators: Greater employability and higher rates of employment. Outcome Data: 1175 job placements in 1996 (98/month) Gross Expenditures: $ 9,002,221 Financing: $ 7,670,390 Net County Cost: $ 1,331,831 4 22 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, GAIN Initiatives: GAIN, which is now part of the Income Maintenance Bureau, is helping in planning and implementing an employment focused service delivery system in accordance with the mandates of the Federal Welfare Reform Bill. Four pilot projects will be implemented and evaluated by the end of December 1997. The goal is to place 5,000 TANF (formerly AFDC) recipients into work activities by September 1997. The new employment focused system will assist recipients to move toward self sufficiency more quickly than the former system. In addition, we are piloting post-employment services; i.e., activities designed to help recipients retain their jobs and work toward promotion and better jobs and wages. System Savings: The demand for welfare payments, the juvenile court system, the child welfare system, etc. is reduced as more clients become employed and self sufficient. Interrelationships: Moving welfare recipients toward self sufficiency requires collaboration with County agencies and community based organizations in the areas of workforce development, training and job development. We are currently working closely with the County PIC, the City of Richmond PIC, EDD, County Department of Education, community colleges, adult schools and numerous CBOs to assist our clients to get into jobs. Some of this collaborative effort is taking the form of directly contracting with agencies in the community to provide job services while our staff provides support services. We also collaborate with our local child care resource and referral agency to educate parents and to help develop quality child care for our recipients. Internally, we are training specific workers to offer child care counseling and to act as resources about child care, both for our clients and for the employment services staff. 10. Head Start Community Services Description: Provides child and family development services to eligible families with children ages three to five. Services are provided through 14 County operated children's centers, two community based Delegate Agency contractors and four home based child care homes. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children by providing family support; Increase the economic stability and self-sufficiency of families. 23 r • No. of Clients: 1,183 families Outcome Indicators: Better functioning families; Greater employability and rates of employment. Outcome Data: On site program review by federal authorities indicates compliance with program standards. Gross Expenditures: $ 6,683,543 Financing: $ 6,641,223 Net County Cost: $ 42,320 • Funding Sources: Administration for Children & Families, County General Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Community Services Department - Head Start Division Initiatives: Several initiatives have been launched to augment the delivery of Head Start comprehensive services to eligible children and families. These include the training of Head Start parents and staff on the methodology of Facilitative leadership and the Sister grantee mentoring relationship established between Santa Clara County Office of Education's Head Start program and the CCC Head • Start program. These initiatives were partially funded by a ACF Training and Technical Assistance grant awarded to the Head Start Bay Area HS cluster (of which Contra Costa County is a member). System Savings: Head Start comprehensive services have been proven to increase school rate retention and graduation rates and decrease county health and mental health costs. Interrelationships: The CCC Head Start program is involved in multiple interagency agreements with a variety of public and non-for-profit agencies in an effort to augment services to both children and families. Some of these collaboratives are with the three County Special Education Local Planning Areas (SELPA's), the Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) program and the CCC Department of Social Service. �7. Income Maintenance Social Service Department • Description: Provides cash assistance for families with children who are needy because of the absence, incapacity, unemployment or death of one or more parents. Provides eligibility determination for AFDC and Medi-Cal programs. Mandated program. 24 Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children by providing for their basic needs, including medical care; • increase the economic stability of families. No. of Clients: 68,000 adults and children, 1996 monthly average Outcome Indicators: Higher and/or more stable family incomes. Outcome Data: 36,000 families served, monthly average Gross Expenditures: $ 113,917,233 • Financing: $ 108,943,469 Net County Cost: $ 4,973,764 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Aid, AFDC and Medi-Cal (Administration) Initiatives: Income Maintenance is working with the GAIN program to plan and implement an employment focused service delivery system in accordance with the mandates of the Federal Welfare Reform Bill. This is a dramatic refocus in the mission of the Income Maintenance Bureau. Within the department, four pilot projects will be implemented and evaluated by the end of December 1997. The goal is to place 5,000 TANF (formerly AFDC) recipients into work activities by September 1997. The new employment focus system will assist recipients to move toward self sufficiency more quickly than the former system. In addition, we are piloting post-employment services; i.e., activities designed to help recipients retain their jobs and work toward promotion and better jobs and wages. • Systems Savings: As more clients become employed and self sufficient, the less demand there is for welfare, the juvenile court system, the child welfare system, etc. Our GAIN and child care workers offer counseling services and subsidies to TANF recipients and the working poor to help them find and keep employment. Lack of child care, however, is the greatest barrier to steady employment. Interrelationships: Moving welfare recipients toward self sufficiency requires • collaboration with County agencies and community based organizations in the areas of workforce development, training and job development. We are currently working closely with the County PIC, the City of Richmond PIC, EDD, community colleges, adult schools and numerous CBOs to assist our clients to get into jobs. We also collaborate with our local child care resource and referral agency to educate parents and to help develop quality child care for our recipients. Internally, we are training specific workers to offer child care counseling and to act as resources about child care, both for our clients and for the employment services staff. 25 • 72, Independent Living Skills (ILS) Social Service Department • Description: Provides support and practical skill building for juveniles in the foster care system. The program is designed to assist dependent minors to become self sufficient when they leave the foster care system. Discretionary program. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of • children leaving the foster care system. No. of Clients: 298 received ILS Services in Federal FY 95-96 (10/1/95 - 9/30/96) Outcome Indicators: Increase the number of children who possess self sufficiency skills as evidenced by attendance in higher • education post high school and who are employed. Outcome Data: Youth who entered higher education after high school FFY 95-96: 45 Youth who obtained employment after high school in FFY 95-96: 158 Youth who completed or are currently enrolled in vocational or on-the-job training FFY 95-96: 54 Gross Expenditures: $ 291,684 Financing: $ 291,684 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Independent Living Skills • Initiatives: We have been coordinating with PIC, Housing Authority and service organizations such as the Rotary Clubs to enhance opportunities for our emancipating foster children. We obtained approval to develop a Transitional Housing Program for foster children prior to leaving foster care. The program plans to place six foster children in independent living arrangements during FY 97-98. We also received funding from California Department of Social Services to utilize • emancipated ILSP foster children in a recruitment campaign for foster homes for teens. System Savings: Strategies are all geared toward developing self-sufficient young adults who will not need public aid upon emancipation. If the recruitment campaign is successful, we hope to see savings in AFDC (TANF)-FC due to more availability of foster homes, thus reducing the need for expensive group home / 26 7 placements. Interrelationships: There is considerable coordination with community resources 410 on behalf of ILSP foster children. Staff work with colleges to obtain admissions for foster children, employers to find jobs and with foster and group home providers to outreach to foster children in placements. 13. Job Training/Economic Development Community Development Department- Redevelopment and Housing Description: Funds are provided to non-profit, public agencies, and for-profit businesses to increase employment through job training,-and to expand economic opportunity through technical assistance and low interest loans (6 contracts). No discretion Goals: Increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of families. No. of Clients: 226 Outcome Indicators: Increase in job readiness and employable Skills. a Outcome Data: Not available _ Gross Expenditures: $ 494,500 Financing: $ 494,500 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 0 Budget Basis: 12% of CDBG Grant Budget Reference: Community Development Department - Redevelopment Initiatives: Several programs are collaborations of multiple non-profit and public agencies. 0 System Savings: Economic self sufficiency helps reduce welfare dependency. Interrelationships: Programs work with AFDC (TANF), General Assistance, Head Start and Child Development Programs as well as targeted geographic areas with high poverty rates • 74. Summer Youth Employment & Training Program Private Industry Council Description: Provides work experience, basic education, Skills training, labor market information, vocational assessment, supportive services, and job development and placement to economically disadvantaged youths ages 14-21 27 during the summer months. No program discretion. Goals: Increase the economic stability and self-sufficiency of •, youth and their parents. No. of Cases: 1,100 Outcome Indicators: Supervised youth work experience; academic enrichment - Outcome Data: 1,000 work experience job placements; 50% or better • participation in academic enrichment activities Gross Expenditures: $ 1,621,000 Financing: $ 1,621,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 • Funding Sources: JTPA Title IIB Budget Basis: 100% of Program Budget Budget Reference: PIC 15. Summer Youth Jobs Program • Private Industry Council Description: Youth summer jobs program, operating in conjunction with the California Employment Development Department, local chambers of commerce and cities. Very limited program discretion. • Goals: Increase the economic stability and self-sufficiency of youth. No. of Clients: 2,000 Outcome Indicators: Greater employability and higher rates of employment. Outcome Data: 2,000 youth employed. Gross Expenditures: $ 26,500 Financing: $ 26,500 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Private Sector Donations Budget Basis: 100% of Program Budget Budget Reference: PIC 28 4 • 16. Youth Economically Disadvantaged Employment/Training • Private Industry Council Description: Prepares economically disadvantaged youth to increase employment competency and obtain employment through vocational assessment counseling, classroom training,job search and placement, work experience and try out internships. No program discretion. • Goals: Increase the economic stability and self-sufficiency of youth and their parents. No. of Cases: 225 Outcome Indicators: Entered employment rate and youth competency • attainment rate Outcome Data: Minimum 58% retention rate and 40% youth competency rate Gross Expenditures: $ 710,000 • Financing: $ 710,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal JTPA Title IIC Budget Basis: 100% of Program Budget Budget Reference: PIC • • 29 I • 1997 Children Services Budget ISE__ "R1 do COU Counry&--- of Contra • • .1 Let In teTIU°na11y • • a i � i Family Functionin g • This Page Left Intentionally Blank • • • • Family Functioning 1. Central County Child & Youth Services Health Services Department - Mental Health Description: Provides outpatient mental health services to low-income seriously emotionally disturbed children, adolescents, families, -and parenting groups. Services include psychological testing, consultation and mental health education in Central County. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for low income seriously emotionally disturbed children; Support, ! promote, and encourage the stability of families. No. of Clients: 190/year Outcome Indicators: Behavior changes in children; Diminished intensity in parenting problems. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 837,000 Financing: $ 379,000 Net County Cost: $ 458,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees and County General Funds 0 Budget Basis: 1.7% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children & Adolescent Services Initiatives: EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment), a form of federal MediCaid and State funding, has created six new mini-programs ! that, among others, provide needed mental health screening of children entering the Emergency Foster Care System, and to youth and families at the SIT's (Service Integration Teams) in West and East County and also at all Mental Health Children's Programs including three contract providers. System Savings: The State AB3015 contract requires that we reduce group home costs across Probation, Social Service, and AB3632 in order to continue S being funded. We have already begun to see significant decrease in AB3632 placement costs. Medi-Cal psychiatric hospitalization costs have also been reduced significantly. Interrelationships: The Children's Mental Health System of Care is involved with significant interagency collaboration with all child serving county agencies and the 18 school districts. There is also considerable coordination with a number of 33 community-based agencies. 2. Child Abuse Prevention Social Service Department Description: Provides child abuse prevention, information and direct services (e.g., counseling, child care, homemakers) by funding community based organizations. Authorized under. AB 1733. Optional program. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children at risk of child abuse. No. of Clients: 4,500 adults and 600 children over the year Outcome Indicators: Decreased incidence of child abuse and neglect. • Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 212,408 Financing: $ 212,408 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Funds • Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration Services, State Office of Child Abuse Prevention, Contracts 3. Child Abuse Support Services Community Development Department - Redevelopment and Housing Description: Funds are granted to non-profit organizations to provide support services to children who are victims of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. No program discretion. Goals: Provide advocacy No. of Clients: 20 children Outcome Indicators: Not available Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 14,000 Financing: $ 14,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Basis: 0.4% of CDBG Grant 34 Budget Reference: Community Development Department- Redevelopment 4, Contracted Children Services Health Services - Mental Health Description: Services include outpatient mental health services, day treatment, crisis residential, prevention and early intervention services. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for youth requiring mental health services; Support, promote, and encourage the stability of families. No. of Clients: 650/year Outcome Indicators: Behavior changes; Diminished intensity in parenting problems and symptoms; Number of children who can be maintained in their own home. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 5,164,000 Financing: $ 1,660,000 Net County Cost: $ 3,504,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees and County General Funds Budget Basis: 10.5% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Initiatives: EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment), a form of federal MediCaid and State funding, has created six new mini-programs that, among others, provide needed mental health screening of children entering the Emergency Foster Care System, and to youth and families at the SIT's (Service Integration Teams) in West and East County and also at all Mental Health Children's Programs including three contract providers. System Savings: The State AB3015 contract requires that we reduce group home costs across Probation, Social Service, and AB3632 in order to continue being funded. We have already begun to see significant decrease in AB3632 placement costs. Medi-Cal psychiatric hospitalization costs have also been reduced significantly. Interrelationships: The Children's Mental Health System of Care is involved with significant interagency collaboration with all child serving county agencies and the 18 school districts. There is also considerable coordination with a number of community-based agencies. 35 5. East County Children's' Mental Health Health Services Department- Mental Health Description: Provides individual, group & family psychotherapy, crisis intervention, diagnosis and assessment, case management, medication and consultation. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for youth suffering from mental health disorders; Support, promote and encourage the integrity of families. No. of Clients: 4001year Outcome Indicators: Diminished intensity in parenting problems and symptoms; Behavior changes in children. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 628,000 Financing: $ 282,000 Net County Cost: $ 346,000 "i Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees and County General Funds Budget Basis: 1.3% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children & Adolescent Services Initiatives: EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment), a form of federal MediCaid and State funding, has created six new mini-programs that, among others, provide needed mental health screening of children entering the Emergency Foster Care System, and to youth and families at the SIT's (Service Integration Teams) in West and East County and also at all Mental Health Children's Programs including three contract providers. System Savings: The State AB3015 contract requires that we reduce group home costs across Probation, Social Service, and AB3632 in order to continue being funded. We have already begun to see significant decrease in AB3632 placement costs. Medi-Cal psychiatric hospitalization costs have also been reduced significantly. Interrelationships: The Children's Mental Health System of Care is involved with significant interagency collaboration with all child serving county agencies and the i 18 school districts. There is also considerable coordination with a number of community-based agencies. 36 6. Family Maintenance Social Service Department Description: Provide in-home protective services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or exploitation. Services are aimed at preventing the separation of children from their families and may be either court ordered or by voluntary agreement. There is limited discretion in this program. Voluntary services are discretionary; +� however, court ordered family maintenance services are governed by Federal and State law and regulations. Goals: To prevent out-of-home placement of children through the provision of in-home services to families where abuse and/or neglect have been identified. No. of Clients: 690 average children per month Outcome Indicators: The number of families who have received these services and whose children did not go into foster care. Outcome Data: Increase of 57 children during 1996. ! Gross Expenditures: $ 2,706,207 Financing: $ 2,146,979 Net County Cost: $ 559,228 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Family Maintenance 7. Family Preservation and Support Program - Federal Description: Family Preservation and Support Program (FPSP) is a federal ! program which allows each community to define the family preservation and support services to be delivered in each county. It requires community advisory committees to make decisions. Discretionary program Goals: To strengthen family functioning and prevent out-of- home care for children who reside in targeted areas in the county - Bay Point, Pittsburg, North Richmond and Coronado: Number of Clients: All eligible clients in those areas. Program Outcome: Each contract must collect data on specific outcomes related to the services in the targeted area. Outcome Data: 2,042 received various services between April and 37 ! September 1996. Gross Expenditures: $470,971 i Financing: $470,971 Net County Funds: $ 0 Funding Source: Federal Funds Budget Basis: 100% Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service Administration & Services, Family Preservation and Support Program +� Initiatives: A number of innovative strategies are being utilized in the four communities that have FPSP. Grandparenting groups, recreational activities for youngsters, job opportunities for parents, community advocacy personnel, information and referral services, respite services are some of the strategies. FPSP is operational in all four target areas. System Savings: FPSP is designed as primarily a family support program to provide services to families to support their strengths and thus to prevent the need for foster care placements. If successful, child welfare administrative and AFDC-FC costs should be reduced. Interrelationships: FPSP requires an oversight committee at the policy level consisting of members of the major county departments and community members. Our plan calls for advisory groups at the local level of service delivery to ensure that FPSP meets community needs and builds on existing community collaboration. 8. Family Preservation - State Social Service Department Description: Provision of services to children and their families when the child is at risk of out-of-home placement. This program was designed to prevent foster care placement and to provide early intervention services to families. Discretionary program. Goals: To prevent out-of-home placement of children through provision of services that meet the needs of individual families; Intensive In-Home Intervention, Kinship Care, and Shared Family Care. No. of Clients: Intensive In-Home Intervention - 150 families (program in partnership with Probation) Kinship Care- not determined yet, RFP is out Shared Family Care - 5 mentor families providing care for 10 families per year in North Richmond area. Outcome Indicators: Intensive In-Home Intervention-75% of those receiving 38 a services will remain in their own homes or will not have to be place in higher level of care Kinship Care - 75% of those receiving services will continue to provide care without need of foster placement. Shared Family Care - 80% of children who received shared family care will remain with their parent. Outcome Data: Out-of-Home or higher level (and cost) placement avoided for 225 children in FY 95-96. Gross Expenditures: $ 1,066,404 Financing: $ 746,483 Net County Cost: $ 319,921 Funding Sources: State & County General Funds r Zellerbach Grant-additional $40,000 for Shared Family Care. Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration and Services, Family Preservation Initiatives: We have rebid our contracts for FY 97-98 in order to implement two major strategies Shared Family Care and Kinship Centers. Both of these programs offer prevention and early intervention services to families to avoid out-of-home care and to keep families together. Both will be offered through community based organizations. System Savings: These strategies are designed to reduce AFDC-FC costs by preventing out-of-home foster care placement. The Kinship Center is designed to keep children with kin in the community and offer services to grandparents who find themselves in a parenting role. Interrelationships: The State Family Preservation Program also provides intensive in-home services to both probation and social services families. It requires i coordination with that department as well as the FamiliesFirst who provides the services. 9. Family Reunification . Social Service Department Description: Provide time-limited foster care services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or exploitation when a child cannot safely remain at home and needs temporary foster care while services are provided to reunite the family. Some program discretion. • 39 Goals: Provision of case management services to parents and children to ameliorate the causes that lead to abuse and/or neglect and the subsequent placement of the child in foster care. No. of Clients: 600 children average monthly Outcome Indicators: Increase the number of children who are returned to the home of a parent. Outcome Data: 120 children transferred to Family Maintenance in 1996. Gross Expenditures: $ 4,017,908 Financing: - $ 3,187,621 Net County Cost: $ 830,287 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Family Maintenance Initiatives: The Department is in the development phase of a Concurrent Planning model with plans for full implementation in FY 98-98. This requires assessment of children for permanency options during the traditional FR service delivery phase. By streamlining our case management process and recognizing adoption activities that must be performed by the FR worker, we will be moving cases to permanency more expeditiously; either to reunification or adoption. System Savings: By moving children to permanent plans more quickly, we anticipate reduced costs in out-of-care, court and child welfare administration. Interrelationships: One of the primary barriers is the court process. We expect an increase in litigation and, therefore, more costs related to the judicial process. This will also require greater collaboration with substance abuse programs in the county and mental health services as we seek to ensure that all legal requirements with respect to "reasonable efforts" be met as required by law. 10. Family Services Community Development Department - Redevelopment and Housing Description: Funds are granted to non-profit organizations to provide programs i that serve low-income families and children in acquiring basic services (4 programs). No program discretion. Goals: Create opportunities for safe and healthy living. No. of Clients: 976 persons/families 40 w Outcome Indicators: Not available Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 47,000 Financing: $ 47,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Basis: 1.2% of CDBG Grant Budget Reference: Community Development Department - Redevelopment 11. Family Support Community Development ! Description: Funds are granted to non-profit organizations to provide a home visitation program for low income families at high risk for continued incidents of abuse and neglect. Discretionary program. Goals: No. of Cases: 10-15 families per year Outcome Indicators: Reduction in child abuse reports Outcome Data: Gross Expenditures: $ 10,000 r Financing: $ 10,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Basis: .2% CDBG Grant Budget Reference: Community Development Department System Savings: Program would reduce incidence of child abuse or neglect. 12. Intensive Intermittent Intervention Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides long-term, periodic in-home support and crisis intervention to families with limited coping skills who experience cycles of chronic instability escalating to crisis. Some program discretion Goals: Support, promote, , and encourage the integrity of s 41 A families. No. of Clients: 120 per year Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of children who can be y maintained in their own homes; Increase in levels of parent and youth satisfaction. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 606,000 Financing: $ 606,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Medi-Cal and State Funds Budget Basis: 1.2% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children & Adolescent Services Initiatives: A number of innovative strategies are being utilized in the Children's Mental Health System of Care, facilitated, in part, by new funds. These include intensive, in-home intervention in which the WrapAround process/model is used to individualize services to families in a community-based model. System Savings: The State AB3015 contract requires that we reduce group home costs across Probation, Social Service, and AB3632 in order to continue being funded. We have already begun to see significant decrease in AB3632 placement costs. Interrelationships: The Children's Mental Health System of Care is involved with significant interagency collaboration with all child serving county agencies and the 18 school districts. There is also considerable coordination with a number of community-based agencies. » 13. Violence Prevention Project Community Development - Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund Description: Educational support, family counseling, and youth violence/conflict prevention for at risk youth and families. Some program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children and families; Provide mitigation to communities affected by nearby landfills and ancillary solid waste facilities. i No. of Clients: 75 Outcome Indicators: Not available Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 16,000 42 S Financing: $ 16,000 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources: Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust 0 Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 6.6% of budget Budget Reference: Community Development Department/ Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust Fund 0 14. West Contra Costa County Children's Services Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides outpatient psychotherapy, child-play therapy, family therapy, couples therapy, medication evaluation, parent and child support groups. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for youth requiring mental health services through family and individual counseling. 0 No. of Clients: 300/year Outcome Indicators: Behavior changes; Diminished intensity in parenting problems and symptoms. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 1,130,000 • Financing: $ 514,000 Net County Cost: $ 616,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees and County General Funds Budget Basis: 2.3% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children & Adolescent Services Initiatives: EPSDT(Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment), a form of federal MediCaid and State funding, has created six new mini-programs that, among others, provide needed mental health screening of children entering the Emergency Foster Care System, and to youth and families at the SIT's (Service Integration Teams) in West and East County and also at all Mental Health V Children's Programs including three contract providers. System Savings: The State AB3015 contract requires that we reduce group home costs across Probation, Social Service, and AB3632 in order to continue being funded. We have already begun to see significant decrease in AB3632 placement costs. Medi-Cal psychiatric hospitalization costs have also been reduced significantly. • 43 • Interrelationships: The Children's Mental Health System of Care is involved with significant interagency collaboration with all child serving county agencies and the 18 school districts. There is also considerable coordination with a number of community-based agencies. • 15, Young Adult Services Health Services - Mental Health • Description: Provides a full range of mental health services county-wide to persons ages 18-20. Some program discretion. Goals: To provide a full range of mental health services county-wide to persons ages 18-20. No. of Clients: 80/year Outcome Indicators: Measured by the number of young adults who maintain normal community living and do not require higher levels of care. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 550,000 Financing: $ 275,000 Net County Cost: $ 275,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds and County General Funds Budget Basis: 1.1% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Mental Health Adult Services 0 Initiatives: An intensive case management model program that provides mental health services including housing and vocational supports to young adults otherwise at risk for hospitalization and/or long-term institutional care. The program focuses upon stabilizing young adults in their family or community living situations and supporting them toward meaningful and productive living. System Savings: This program provides immediate savings through alternatives to and diversion from crisis services, acute inpatient care, and long-term institutional care. Long-term savings can be achieved to the extent that young adults are successfully diverted from entering the Adult Mental Health System of Care. Interrelationships: This program forms a bridge between the children's and adult mental health systems. As such, it necessarily has both informal and formal relationships with both complex systems. • 44 • S Health Wellness t ............ may":• ,:� �; { t✓� .nom � i� � ` i£..4•:�..-. • 1 1 This Page Left Intentionally Blank • • • • • Health & Wellness • Black Infant Health Project Health Services Department - Public Health Description: The Black Infant Health Project's (BIH) primary focus is Prenatal Health for High Risk African American women. A secondary focus is assurance of wellness care for children born to these women up to the first year of life. Inclusive of wellness care is the acquisition of age appropriate immunizations. The BIH project is subcontracted to the East Bay Perinatal Council (EBPC) and is 0 funded to work with fifty high risk women. The actual case load is close to one hundred and twenty women. The interventive models funded by the Maternal Child Health (MCH) Program is "follow-up and tracking" and "Role of Men." These models complement the "outreach" model which is funded directly by State MCH to the EBPC. Both models utilize community outreach workers under the day-to- day supervision of a Social Worker. Weekly PHN consultation is provided by the i CHDP Program. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Conduct a community based Black Infant Health Program in the local jurisdiction that supports, facilitates and promotes better ,health" care for at-risk African- American women and children up to age 2 years and 91 their families. Implement the outreach model intervention as made available through state model development process, to facilitate access to care and appropriate utilization of needed health and human services. Expand the Role of Men Model (Proud • Fathers Program) in an effort to increase services from 15 to up to a minimum of 25 expectant/parenting teen fathers. No. of Clients: 120 women/year Outcome Indicators: Serves up to 50 African American pregnant and parenting women. Contra Costa's model emphasizes 4 serving high risk women as determined by using a risk appraisal tool. Outcome Data: Not Available Gross Expenditures: $ 136,375 Financing: $ 136,375 `. Net County Cost: $ 0 47 i Funding Sources: Federal Funds Budget Basis: 0.43% of Recommended Budget/Allocated Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Initiatives: Innovative service delivery strategies include the following: 1) Work with schools and churches; 2) Establishment of an Advisory Board; 3) Health Fairs; 4) Special celebration events for Mothers; 5) Incentive vouchers; 6) Group meetings; 7) Referrals to ancillary services. System Savings: During the project period, 100% of infants born to this target r group of women weighed 5 lbs. 8 ozs. or more. This normal birth weight resulted in tremendous savings associated with hospital and after care costs for infants who are born below the normal birth weight standard. Example: One infant with a birth weight below 3 pounds could cost upwards of$500,000 in NICU care per month. Interrelationships: The project has interfaced with the following groups: 1. Adolescent Families Life Project; 2. Head Start; 3. WIC; 4.13orn Free; 5. CHDP; 6. Immunizations; 7. Zeta Phi Beta Sorority; 8. Greater Richmond Churches United; 9. PHN. Barriers include: 1. Lack of adequate staff to expand the target group to include more high risk pregnant women; 2. Lack of ability to provide increased level of incentive support (i.e., child care while mothers attend group meetings). 2. Born Free r Health Services Department - Substance Abuse Description: Provides individual, group, partner and family counseling for pregnant or parenting women. Referrals are made through Healthy Start, Delivery at Merrithew Memorial Hospital, Parent Education groups and child care providers. Some program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and welfare of children and families and enhance developmental opportunities for - newborns. No. of Clients: 225 per year. Outcome Indicators: Fewer cases of substance abuse by pregnant or parenting women and/or their partners; Reduced number of substance abuse addicted newborns. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 490,000 Financing: $ 428,000 Net County Cost: $ 62,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, County General Funds, and Medi-Cal Budget Basis: 4.2% of Recommended Budget 48 • Budget Reference: Special Programs Initiatives: Born Free received a grant from Contra Costa Health Plan to conduct smoking cessation classes for adult women enrolled in three county programs. Born Free also has a good relationship with the three community colleges for substance abuse counseling internships. System Savings: 1) Born Free works with pregnant women who have a substance abuse problem to reduce and stop using substances and to attend prenatal care. These services decrease the need for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for the infants and decreases crisis-oriented utilization of the ambulatory health care facilities. 2) Born Free works with pregnant and parenting women who are addicts to decrease and stop using substances. These services decrease the need for: Criminal justice system services (police, jail, court, public defender, etc.); social services (child protective services, foster parents, court, etc.); health care services (emergency room, family practice, ambulance, etc.). Interrelationships: Born Free collaborates with a large number of agencies. Examples: 1) Healthy Start Prenatal Care - Healthy Start staff screen pregnant women for current use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs then refer women to a Born Free counselor for further intervention; 2) Born Free refers and follows upon all referrals to the other perinatal treatment programs (We accept referrals from the other perinatal treatment programs); and 3) Born Free has a contract with Family Stress Center to provide parenting education and consultation to the women of Born Free (Family Stress Center also refers women to Born Free). 3. California Children's Services Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Provides specialized medical care from birth up to age 21 for youth with serious medical conditions or severe physical handicaps. Services include medical case management, treatment and diagnostic services, medical therapy services and HIV testing and counseling. Very limited program dis-cretion. Goals: Provide treatment to improve or correct disabilities for eligible children whose families are totally or partially unable to pay for such services. No. of Clients: 1,600/year Outcome Indicators: Fewer pediatric and neonatal deaths, youth with serious medical conditions living longer and active societal participants and decreased inpatient hospital days. Outcome Data: Not available i 49 • Gross Expenditures: $ 4,800,535 Financing: $ 3,779,387 Net County Cost: $ 1,021,148 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees, County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: California Children's Service Initiatives: In FY 96/97, CCS received funding for two FTE PHN's to start on site concurrent hospital review. With the one county approved FTE PHN position, we have started concurrent UR activities and discharge coordination for Medi-Cal eligible clients at Children's Hospital Oakland. This on site activity has increased CCS efficiency, facilitated provider and parent knowledge of CCS and assisted to decrease wasted inpatient days. We have not received county approval to add the other PHN position which will provide the same activities at John Muir Hospital and Alta Bates Hospital. In FY 96/97 CCS received funding for 2 FTE PHN's to provide liaison to the Managed Care Plans in this county. With the one county approved FTE PHN we have a liaison for CCHP. That person works closely with CCHP staff and providers to facilitate and coordinate care for plan clients with CCS eligible conditions. CCS + conditions are excluded from Managed Care. We have not received county approval to add the other PHN position which will provide the same liaison activities for Foundation Health Plan. System Savings: We have continued to educate county providers to refer clients with potentially eligible CCS conditions to CCS rather than using Prop. 99 funds through CHDP. There had been a pattern of county providers using CHDP and increasing the cost for CHDP. Interrelationships: Interagency Council: CCS staff attend weekly meetings, joint referrals and case review to determine most appropriate agency to serve clients. Participants include Regional Center, Education, High Risk Infant Program and CHDP. Barriers are lack of programs that provide therapy services, clients often referred to CCS that do not meet CCS eligibility criteria. f 4. Center for Health in North Richmond Health Services Department - Hospital/Clinics Description: Planning for a health center in North Richmond began in 1994 when the County received $600,000 from the General Chemical settlement for "the construction and equipping of a Health Clinic in the greater Richmond area." Following the receipt of the initial funding, the Board of Supervisors created the Center for Health Advisory Board (April 1994)to work in partnership with the Health Services Department to design the Center and provide continuing oversight and i 50 advice regarding program operations. The Advisory Board quickly adopted the concept of creating a "Center for Health," where medical services would be provided, as well as community health improvement activities, with the overall goal of measurably improving the community's health status. The project area for the Center for Health is six census tracts in West County including North Richmond, Parchester Village, the western part of San Pablo and the Iron Triangle neighborhood of the City of Richmond. The project area is home to 32,000 people, nearly 45% of whom live on incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level. The population is multiethnic with a large number of recent immigrants. The basic program for the Center for Health, based on extensive analysis of epidemiological information and a detailed community survey process, includes the • following components: • Family practice medical care for all ages (from prenatal care through geriatrics), including health education and coordination of specialty care • TB prevention and treatment • HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment Preventive dental services and dental health education • Youth activities to reduce violence, prevent teen pregnancy and increase involvement in health careers • A special resource center for health education and environmental health information and education The Center for Health will be a site for the Contra Costa Health Plan. Both . enrollees in the Medical Managed Care Local Initiative and those who remain in the fee for service system will be served. Some program discretion. Goals: To provide local access to a range of health services. To integrate primary care and community health improvement. No. of Clients: Not yet operational. Projecting 12,000 medical visits per year, up to 1,000 public health home visits, untold number of education and outreach encounters. Outcome Indicators: Still to be determined. Indicators will include well child, HIV, TB, chronic disease measures. Outcome Data: Current epidemiological information highlights disproportionate problems for TB, AIDS, violence, unemployment, infant morbidity and mortality, substance abuse, tobacco use, chronic disease, lead exposure, etc. • 51 • Gross Expenditures: $ 50,000 Financing: $ 50,000 • Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Foundation grants. Budget Basis: Estimated 0.03% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Enterprise Fund I Initiatives: This project is a joint partnership with the Advisory Board and the Wider community. The location, the building design, the identification of program elements and the fund raising for the building are being carried out in a close collaboration between the Health Services Department and the community. Concurrent with the planning for the Center, the Department has launched two other initiatives in the same geographic area —the Healthy Neighborhoods Project, which uses community asset mapping to build the capacity of local residents to determine their health priorities and implement approaches to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods; and Partners in Health, a project funded by the California Wellness Foundation, which is engaging the large civic institutions (cities, business, school district, health care providers) and neighborhood residents to design and implement a community health improvement plan. The priorities for this plan are job readiness, violence prevention and teen pregnancy prevention. The layering of these three efforts—The Center for Health, Healthy Neighborhoods and Partners in Health—creates the opportunity and the momentum to bring to life a new model for public provision of health care and health improvement which we believe will be more efficient and more effective. System Savings: The investment in small, integrated health centers requires initially a greater expenditure of funds with the goal of creating future savings as a result of improved community health. Potential areas for system savings include reduced use of emergency rooms and hospitalization, avoidance or containment of communicable disease, reduction of dental disease and chronic disease: These savings will require several years to materialize. Interrelationships: During the time the building is being constructed, we will • continue working with the Advisory Board and Health Services staff to create an effectively integrated, community responsive model. The Center will work closely with the other key resources in the surrounding neighborhoods, including the Service Integration Family Resource Center, Healthy Neighborhoods Project, Partners in Health, Family Preservation Support Program, the school district, other health care providers, community based organizations and residents. The Center for Health is scheduled to open for services in July 1998. • 52 • 5. Child Health and Disability Prevention Program Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Provides regular preventive health assessments to infants & youths to identify any health problems. Refer those with suspected problems for necessary diagnosis & treatment. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children through preventative health care. No. of Clients: 8,900 per month Outcome Indicators: Reduction in number and intensity of health problems requiring higher levels of care. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 1,919,001 Financing: $ 1,299,335 Net County Cost: $ 619,666 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds and County General Funds • Budget Basis: 6.06% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Initiatives: The CHDP Program has begun to delegate more non-professional tasks (i.e., pulling records, compiling materials for packets, keeping tallies or counts of certain program data elements) to student workers. This delegation of tasks has freed up the PHN's to concentrate more time interacting directly with clients, participating in planning meetings and conducting quality assurance/management activities. System Savings: Work is carried out by our PHN and Dental Health staff with providers around issues of compliance with the dental inspection and referral of children at age 3 to a dentist. This work has great impact on reducing the severity of dental disease in this population. Dental Disease is the number one condition identified during the periodic health assessment. Early identification, follow-up and intervention reduce the demand for acute and costly dental care later on for these children. The Anemia Prevention Project is another example of work with providers and families in an effort to educate and provide Public Health follow-up case management activities. Evaluation of these efforts reveal that there is a positive impact in reducing the anemia rate in Contra Costa County during FY 96/97. The system savings impact is less demand for treatment of acute anemia and other health problems related to childhood anemia. The Anti-Tobacco (Second Hand Smoke) Activity has demonstrated that when parents/caregivers are provided initial and reinforcement education about the health 53 • risks/dangers of exposing their children (birth to age 5) they make behavior changes. This behavior change reduces the demand for medical treatment of conditions that are associated and/or exacerbated by exposure to second hand smoke. Interrelationships: In efforts to increase referrals, streamline services, and increase community awareness regarding program services, the CHDP Program has entered into new collaborative relationships via interagency agreements with the following programs: 1) Adolescent Family Life Project (AFLP); 2) Black Infant Health ( BIH); 3) Head Start; 4) State Pre-Schools; 5) Department of Social Services- Foster Care Component; Barriers include: 1) Lack of adequate staff to fully implement components of these new relationships; 2) Lack of ability to impact policy decision making by administrative staff of other programs with whom we have agreements; 3) Lack of adequate automated hardware systems needed to enhance data keeping and program outcomes in a more efficient manner. 0 6, Child Health Screening Clinics Health Services Department - Public Health r Description: Provides screening for growth and development, hearing/vision, hemoglobin, dental and nutritional, immunization, lead, child safety and TB. Identification of health problems & referrals made. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children through preventative health care and referral service. No. of Clients: 267/month Outcome Indicators: Reduction in number and intensity of health problems requiring higher levels of care. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 314,109 Financing: $ 216,547 Net County Cost: $ 97,562 Funding Sources: State Funds, Client Fees and County General Funds Budget Basis: 0.99% of Recommended Budget/Actual Budget Reference: Public Health Clinical Services r Initiatives: Institution of school-based CHS clinics in Richmond and Bay Point has increased program effectiveness and access of community members to health care services. In addition, we now perform health care screening for children and adults once a month at Cambridge Elementary School via a van loaned to us by Kaiser. 54 • System Savings: No fiscal offset on the cost of other programs; however, the above services have created numerous non-traditional clinic sites which have resulted in increased health care access for the community population. Interrelationships: There has been extensive collaboration with the school system, other community hospitals and HMO's in the above efforts. 7, Chronic Disease/Injury Prevention Education • Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Educate families and children on proactive measures they can take to improve their safety and reduce risk factors for injury and chronic diseases. Programs emphasize low cost options and strategies to improve health and well- being. The programs are currently focusing on the following health issues: bicycle safety, domestic violence prevention, tobacco use prevention, child passenger safety, childhood lead poisoning prevention, community violence prevention and traffic safety. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improved health status of children and families through • increased awareness of risk factors and their mitigation. No. of Clients: Most efforts are broad-based outreach and education programs which do not target clients for treatment. The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Project includes a clinical case management component which serves a caseload of approximately 50 children with elevated 1 blood lead levels. The bicycle safety projects distribute free bicycle helmets to low-income children. Outcome Indicators: Reduced need for medical services; Increased awareness of disease and injury prevention. Outcome Data: Evaluation components are included in these projects; • Current projects are undergoing evaluation; Reports are available on prior projects. Gross Expenditures: $ 1,592,136 Financing: $ 1,131,482 Net County Cost: $ 460,654 Funding Sources: State Funds Budget Basis: 5.03% of Recommended Budget/Allocated Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Initiatives: The Healthy Neighborhoods Project, which is funded by the East Bay Foundation, applies a community organizing model within specific low-income neighborhoods in Richmond and Pittsburg. Neighbors are identifying residents' 55 • individual skills and the supports and support systems which exist within their neighborhoods to improve their health (e.g., produce markets, churches) and how those supports/systems can be utilized to improve neighbor-hood health. Currently residents are developing an inventory of community-based assets which will be mobilized to improve the health status of their neighborhoods. These efforts are being augmented based on results of community forums which are being held concurrently to identify priorities. System Savings: Actions which children and families take to improve their health status translate into direct savings in their long-term health care costs. As an example, it has been calculated that a severe head injury from a bicycle crash can result in $4.5 million of health system costs and lost productivity over a lifetime. At least two children in Pittsburg this year were wearing helmets provided by the Health Department when they were involved in potentially life-threatening crashes. Those helmets may well have saved their lives and definitely reduced the severity and costs of their injuries. Interrelationships: All projects are planned and implemented through coalitions of community-based organizations and residents, as well as county programs with an interest in the project work. Healthy Neighborhoods works jointly with the Center for Health in North Richmond. The Childhood Injury Prevention Coalition includes CHDP and Healthy Start. The Safe Roads/Safe Families Coalition includes Public 0 Works. While there are barriers to services implicit in any effort with limited resources, joint planning maximizes the available resources while preventing duplication. 8. EPSDT(Early Periodic Screening and Treatment) • Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides comprehensive mental health services to Medi-Cal eligible severely emotionally disturbed persons under age 21 and their families. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for youth requiring mental health services. No. of Clients: 280/year Outcome Indicators: More young adults maintaining normal community living; Fewer youth requiring higher levels of care. Outcome Data: Not available. Gross Expenditures: $1,142,000 Financing: $1,142,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds and County General Funds 56 t a Budget Basis: 2.3% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Initiatives: EPSDT(Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment), a form of federal MediCaid and State funding, has created six new mini-programs that, among others, provide needed mental health screening of children entering the Emergency Foster Care System, and to youth and families at the SIT's (Service Integration Teams) in West and East County and also at all Mental Health Children's Programs including three contract providers. System Savings: Medi-Cal psychiatric hospitalization costs have been reduced significantly. Interrelationships: The Children's Mental Health System of Care is involved with significant interagency collaboration with all child serving county agencies and the 18 school districts. There is also considerable coordination with a number of • community-based agencies. All of the Children's Mental Health programs coordinate and collaborate on a case and program development level. 9. Healthy Start- Pittsburg Health Services Department - Hospital & Clinics Description: Provides health education, prenatal care, dietary counseling and psychosocial evaluation to pregnant women. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children and families by educating pregnant women to improve their health and that of them fetuses and infants. No. of Clients: 45/month Outcome Indicators: Diminished intensity in pre- and post-natal health problems in women and their offspring. Outcome Data: Not available • Gross Expenditures: $ 186,870 Financing: $ 140,152 Net County Cost: $ 46,718 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees and County • General Funds Budget Basis: 0.1% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Hospital and Outpatient Clinics Initiatives: Within the past year, the program staffing was restructured to increase the number of Public Health Aides. The Aides complete routine intake assessments and follow-up activities which do not require the skills, knowledge and 57 • d education of a PHN. System Savings: Without the Healthy Start program, which is also a State- approved Comprehensive Perinatal Services Program (CPSP), the educational component of prenatal care would have to be provided by more highly paid physicians. In addition, birth outcomes would be negatively impacted because CPSP services have proven to improve newborn birth weights and reduce infant mortality. Interrelationships: The Healthy Start program has detailed referral relationships with primary care and with the Born Free program, a substance abuse program for • pregnant women. 90. Healthy Start- Richmond Health Services Department - Hospital & Clinics 0 Description: Provides health education, prenatal care, dietary counseling and psychosocial evaluation to pregnant women. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and welfare of children and families by educating pregnant women. • No. of Clients: 122 per month Outcome Indicators: Diminished intensity in pre- and post-natal health problems in women and their offspring. Outcome Data: Not available. Gross Expenditures: $ 218,708 Financing: $ 179,341 Net County Cost: $ 39,367 Funding Sources: Federal, State, and General Funds; Client Fees Budget Basis: 0.1% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Hospital and Outpatient Clinics Initiatives: Within the past year, the program staffing was restructured to increase the number of Public Health Aides. The Aides complete routine intake assessments and follow-up activities which do not require the skills, knowledge and education of a PHN. System Savings: Without the Healthy Start program, which is also a State- approved Comprehensive Perinatal Services Program (CPSP), the educational component of prenatal care would have to be provided by more highly paid physicians. In addition, birth outcomes would be negatively impacted because CPSP services have proven to improve newborn birth weights and reduce infant mortality. Interrelationships: The Healthy Start program has detailed referral relationships 58 • with primary care and with the Born Free program, a substance abuse program for pregnant women. 11. High Risk Infant Follow-Up Program Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Provides home visits to parents/care givers of fragile infants to • promote optimal health/development outcomes for high-risk infants. Services include in-home family support, parent teaching/training, health monitoring, referrals. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of fragile or high risk infants; Support, promote and encourage the integrity of families. No. of Clients: 287 per year Outcome Indicators: Fewer children requiring higher levels of medical care; Increased number of children safely maintained in their own homes. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 459,860 Financing: $ 251,587 Net County Cost: $ 208,273 Funding Sources: State Funds and County General Funds • Budget Basis: 1.45% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Initiatives: None within the last year System Savings: Early home based intervention has a positive impact on the health and development of the child leading to fewer number of hospitalizations at Merrithew and other community hospitals. In addition, family teaching and support leads to more positive parent and child interaction resulting in fewer referrals to child protective services. Interrelationships: The High Risk Infant Follow-up Program has close working relationships with community hospital NICU's, as well as a close working relation 40 with Merrithew, Public Health Nurses, community based Public Health Clinics, CCS, CHDP, CPS, etc., which involves referrals, joint interventions and collaborative efforts on behalf of children and families. In addition, the program works closely with all other agencies dealing with high risk infants including schools, regional centers and community based infant programs. 59 • • 12. Hospital and Emergency Care Services Health Services Department - Hospital/Clinics Description: Provides a full range of inpatient diagnostic and therapeutic services, as well as emergency room services to treat urgent medical and psychiatric problems. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and well-being of children and • adults through direct medical service. No. of Clients: 3,900 per year (based upon financial indicators) Outcome Indicators: Greater number of medical conditions resolved. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 48,601,000 • Financing: $ 47,492,000 Net County Cost: $ 1,109,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees, County General Funds Budget Basis: 20.6% of Recommended Budget • Budget Reference: Hospital and Emergency Care Services Initiatives: Reduction of one RN FTE Transfer of fast track (evenings) to Ambulatory Care. Restructuring of appointments for fast track to increase productivity. Implementation of a sub-clinic, called follow-up clinic, to enhance care for non-continuity patients. Interrelationships: The Department interrelates directly with Ambulatory Care Services. There has been difficulty managing patients new to the system, have no PCP, etc. The follow-up clinic was designed to meet these patients' needs. 13. Immunization Program Health Services - Public Health Description: Immunization Assistance Program- and Immunization Registry provide immunizations for the prevention of childhood and adult diseases; provide education, training and support for public and private sector immunization • providers, outreach and education to care givers and parents; provide support and training to schools and day care providers; and operate the Contra Costa Immunization Registry, an automated tracking system for all children in the county. Very limited program discretion. Goals: To meet or exceed the Year 2000 goal to fully immunize 60 a • at least 90% of all children by the time they are two years old; to include all of Contra Costa's children in the registry. No. of Clients: Approx. 24,000 children under 2 years old and 273,000 children under 21 years old county-wide per year. Outcome Indicators: Increased rate of children up-to-date at 24 months; Increased number of county residents in the registry. Outcome Data: Since 7/1/96 have held 91 outreach immunization • clinics. Since 10/1/96 have enrolled 36,623 people under 21 years old in the registry. Gross Expenditures: $ 1,080,170 Financing: $ 796,393 Net County Cost: $ 283,777 • Funding Sources: Federal/State Grants, Fees Budget Basis: 3.41% of Recommended Budget/Allocated Budget Reference: Communicable Disease Control Initiatives: Immunization Only and Child Health Screening clinics occur every day ' at various Public Health clinic sites and mobile clinics. In addition to these stationary and scheduled clinics, State funding has provided for additional outreach clinics which include targeted outreach in census tracts where immunization rates are most likely to be low. In July 1996, the East County Immunization Coalition was expanded to serve the entire county. Currently 176 people representing 121 organizations participate in the Coalition. The Immunization Coordinator provides training and consultation to all providers with questions about the immunization schedule or about specific immunizations. The Immunization Registry, first funded in January 1996, currently has 54,539 people who received 241,480 immunizations included in the registry. All Public Health clinics are on-line and all Hospital and Health Center clinics are scheduled to be on-line by December 31, 1997. System Savings: The provision of immunizations for the prevention of infectious • childhood diseases has proven to be among the most cost effective of all Public Health strategies. It is estimated that $10-$14 in future medical care is saved for every dollar spent on immunizations. The 17,000-case measles outbreak in California just a few years ago cost the State 3,400 hospitalizations, 70 deaths and expenses of over $30 million, not including parental time off from work or lost productivity. The loss of a child — particularly to a preventable disease — is, of course, immeasurable. Interrelationships: The Immunization Program works with all Health Services Department clinical programs serving children including CHDP, WIC, and the Hospital & Health Centers Division. Evaluation criteria based on immunization rates for the evaluation of Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans has allowed CCHP to become very involved in the Registry. In 1997-98, the Registry will involve at least • 61 • 3 hospitals (including Merrithew)with obstetric services and at least 15 large private provider practices. The Immunization Coalition includes other public providers, private providers (including representation from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Kaiser Permanente), child advocacy groups, schools and preschools, third-party payers and community representatives. 94. Juvenile Hall Medical Services Health Services Department - Detention Facility Description: Provides primary care medical services to inmates in the Juvenile Hall, including diagnostic testing, treatment and nursing care. Some program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children in • Juvenile Hall through direct medical service. No. of Clients: 600 per year Outcome Indicators: Greater number of medical conditions resolved. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 670,000 Financing: $ 670,000 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Source: Expenditure Transfers Budget Basis: 9.9% of Recommended Budget • Budget Reference: Juvenile Hall Medical Services 15. Outpatient Discovery Centers Health Services - Substance Abuse • Description: Provides outpatient counseling, crisis intervention and primary prevention services to youth in substance abuse centers, schools and clubs. Some program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of youth; increase success in school. No. of Clients: 4,200/year Outcome Indicators: Reduction in substance abuse addiction and overall use among youth. Outcome Data: Not available 62 • Gross Expenditures: $ 197,000 Financing: $ 197,000 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources: Federal Funds Budget Basis: 1.7% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Prevention, Non-Residential and Special Programs Initiatives: Spanish-speaking groups for children and adults. Integrated Mental Health/Substance Abuse services for young adults. System Savings: Outpatient dual diagnosis groups reduce frequency of admissions to locked, hospital psychiatric services and/or jail. Interrelationships: Referrals from Battered Women's Alternatives and Probation clients with substance abuse in connection with violent behavior at home. • 16. Physician Services Health Services Department - Hospital/Clinics Description: Provides direct patient care services at Merrithew Memorial Hospital and Health Centers through 80 primary care physicians and more than 175 specialty care physicians. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and well-being of children and adults through direct medical service. No. of Clients: 9,200 per year (based upon financial indicators) • Outcome Indicators: Greater number of medical and psychiatric conditions resolved. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $13,473,000 Financing: $12,191,000 Net County Cost: . $ 1,282,000- Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees, County General Funds Budget Basis: 8% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Physician Services • • 63 • • 17. Prenatal Care Guidance Program Health Services Department - Public Health ! Description: Prenatal Care Guidance (PCG) programs will outreach to Medi-Cal eligible women to assure early entry into prenatal care. PCG tracks immunizations of infants up to the first 12 months of life. Required program components in PCG area include: — coordination with local CPSP and other outreach services to avoid • duplication and save resources —providing outreach activities to inform pregnant women, target groups and the agencies that provide services to them of(1) the need for early prenatal care, (2) the Medi-Cal application process, and (3) the availability of and sources of prenatal care. — follow-up of high-risk targeted Medi-Cal eligible women to assist them in • beginning and continuing prenatal care and assist them in obtaining immediate preventive medical care for the baby through the Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) Program. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Decreased infant mortality/morbidity; Increase in the 0 number of healthy babies. No. of Clients: Between 7/1/96 and 12/31/96, the PCG Program received 729 referrals, made 4,711 contacts, and referred 184 clients to perinatal care. There were 317.5 hours spent on community work. • Outcome Indicators: Increase to at least 95% the proportion of all pregnant women who receive prenatal care in first trimester. Outcome Data: Between 7/1/96 and 12/31/96; 132 babies born with birth weight greater than 5.5 lbs. and 4 babies born with birth weight less than 5.5 lbs. During this period of time, 226 women entered care during the first trimester, • 119 extended during the second trimester and 55 entered care during the third trimester (56% entered during the first trimester). Gross Expenditures: $ 300,239 0 Financing: $ 167,849 Net County Cost: $ 132,390 Funding Sources: Federal/State Grants Budget Basis: 0.95% of Recommended Budget/Actual Budget Reference: Public Health Grants • 64 • Initiatives: Over the past year, the PCG workers have increased their case management activities due to the demands evidenced through high risk issues. • They see more women reporting substance use, women who admit they are victims of domestic violence, and other risks. In addition, unqualified (undocumented) clients are more fearful of accessing services due to recent political actions of Proposition 187, threatening the numbers who will seek prenatal care. Due to this, new strategies have been implemented. PCG workers have increased their training in various areas: Dual Diagnosis issues, HIV/AIDS, issues related to Welfare Reform and decreased funding for immigrants, etc. PCG developed videos addressing PCG services and insuring clients will continue to access HSD services. These videos will be widely distributed. In addition, community forums regarding these same issues have been held, as well as radio interviews explaining PCG services and immigration issues. We have not been able to evaluate the impact of this additional outreach effort on whether or not it has improved clients accessing • care through HSD. System Savings: Based on OB Access findings (precursor to Comprehensive Perinatal Services of 1988), for every dollar spent on prenatal care, $2.00 is saved in health outcome. Prenatal care is cost effective. Cost savings of preventing an infant from entering ICU could be thousands of dollars per day. When costs savings over the lifetime of an individual is considered due to off-setting morbidity • cost, this is more difficult to determine. Interrelationships: PCG collaborates with numerous programs. PCG works closely with Healthy Start Program (County's perinatal program) by getting women back into prenatal care, case management of high risk women, attending case conferences with Healthy Start staff to bring feedback regarding Healthy Start • clients. PCG collaborates with other perinatal providers in the community such as the County Perinatal Services Coordination Team, HSD Community Substance Services Program, Mental Health, various Public Health Programs and many community programs (i.e., Battered Women's Alternatives, etc.). Barriers exist due to funding parameters. For example, they have been approached to case manage clients who are not pregnant but obviously need this service. In • addition, many clients (mothers) need case management beyond the one year that the infant is followed to insure immunizations. Often gaps are identified between 12 month and 15 month immunizations, but officially PCG workers are not to follow beyond 12 months. Once a relationship is established, the workers are often contacted later by women seeking service but fall outside of the funding criteria. PCG workers do their best to assist women to access other services, however such • services are limited. • 65 • 18. Public Health Dental Program Health Services Department - Public Health 0 Description: Provides direct dental services to children in schools including plaque control and fluoride treatments, and educates children, teachers and parents to help develop dental skills. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children through 0 dental care direct service and education. No. of Clients: 21,906 children, 750 teachers, 500 parents/year Outcome Indicators: Improvements in overall dental health (as reflected by plaque indices, plaque control records and teacher evaluations as determined by pre/post tests) 0 Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 168,986 Financing: $ 98,576 Net County Cost: $ 70,410 Funding Sources: State Funds and County General Funds Budget Basis: 0.53% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Initiatives: The SB-111 Dental Program has expanded its services to include a dental sealant program, coordinated with CHDP, the Dental Society and other 0 organizations. Approximately 300 children receive this special service each year. System Savings: Major dental program activities are now carried out by Dental Assistant staff, formerly by Dental Hygienist and Public Health Program Specialists. Use of these positions provides a significant savings to the program and has not resulted in a loss of quality or services. The sealant program is providing the best possible preventive service to our target children. Savings, in terms of future dental • bills, is significant. Interrelationships: In an effort to expand the sealant program to reach more children, we (CHDP-Save Our Smiles) have collaborative agreements with the following programs: 1) Contra Costa Dental Society; 2) Mt. Diablo Dental Hygiene Society; 3) Loma Vista Dental Assisting Program; 4) Contra Costa College Dental Assisting Program; 5) Diablo Valley College Dental Hygiene Clinic; 6) Healthy Start Centers. Barriers include: 1) lack of funding; 2) inadequate number of facilities to sponsor clinics; 3) lack of adequate staff to expand current programs; 4) lack of computer equipment to store and track important data collected. • 66 0 • 79. Substance Abuse Intervention and Prevention Health Services Department - Substance Abuse Description: Provides residential case management, outpatient counseling, crisis intervention and primary prevention services to pregnant and parenting women and youth in substance abuse centers, schools and clubs. Some program discretion. • Goals: Improve the health and welfare of children and families and enhance developmental opportunities for newborns. No. of Clients: 57,500 per year Outcome Indicators: Fewer cases of substance abuse by pregnant or parenting women and/or their partners; Reduced • number of substance abuse addicted newborns. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures : $ 2,286,000 Financing: $ 2,213,000 Net County Cost: $ 73,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, and County General Funds Budget Basis: 19.5% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Prevention, Non-Residential and Special Programs Initiatives: In advocating for equitable distribution of substance abuse prevention efforts, Community Substance Abuse Services has allocated some resources for a Community Partnership Mini-Grant Initiative. The purpose is to provide seed money to community activists and grass roots groups who have no other current funding for substance abuse prevention. • System Savings: The Community Partnership Mini-Grant Initiative is based on volunteer efforts, enhancement and development of leadership skills, community building strategies and collaboration. The interrelationship between Community Substance Abuse Services prevention staff and grassroots groups expands the number of"providers" involved in prevention, ensures community empowerment, and multiplies resources available for prevention by encouraging in-kind contributions from local businesses, fund raising events that are sponsored by community residents, and joint activities between programs and community groups. Interrelationships: Some of the grassroots organizations that are involved in the Community Partnership are local CASAS (Community Against Substance Abuse), public school Parent Action Groups, substance abuse task forces or initiatives spearheaded by collaborative efforts between substance abuse treatment providers and their consumers. 67 • • 20. Teen Health/School Based Clinics Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Offers health services to youth (12 to 21 years) through public health clinics and schools in West County. Services include sports physicals and wellness examinations, immunizations, hearing and vision screening, family planning/STD's and anticipatory guidance/health information. Very limited program discretion. • Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children through preventative and direct medical service. No. of Clients: 268/month Outcome Indicators: Fewer children requiring higher levels of medical care. Outcome Data: Not available • Gross Expenditures: $ 119,062 Financing: $ 18,490 Net County Cost: $ 100,572 Funding Sources: State Funds and County General Funds Budget Basis: 0.38% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Public Health Clinical Services Initiatives: The TeenAge-Program (TAP) continuously applies for outside funding for projects permitting program expansion. Target areas for program expansion are peer educator training projects and youth employment training projects. Youth educators are highly effective in informing their peers of county clinic services and • teen health issues. TAP received three new grants this past year to train youth as peer educators: — Teen Health Corps project (through Communities in Schools) — Community Challenge Collaborative grant (State Office of Ed.) — Middle College Peer Educator training on HIV and STD's System Savings: TAP received 5 grants the 1996-97 fiscal year for a total of $29,643. TAP received at least three grants for the 1997-98 fiscal year for a total of $36,844. Applying for outside funding saves TAP money and also provides means of program expansion. Interrelationships: TAP works closely with school districts and community based organizations at school sites for referrals and joint interventions. TAP also works • with other county services such as the juvenile detention facilities, CHDP, HIV/AIDS program, STD program and other branches of Public Health Clinic services to provide joint interventions and referrals. • 68 • • 21, Youth Institutional Mental Health Services • Health Services Department - Detention Facility Description: Provides crisis intervention, medication evaluation and critical consultation by Mental Health Division staff. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for youth • maintained in correctional facilities. No. of Clients: 600/year Outcome Indicators: Fewer youth referred to higher levels of care Outcome Data: Not available • Gross Expenditures: $ 230,000 Financing: $ -0- Net County Cost: $ 230,000 Funding Sources: County General Funds Budget Basis: 3.5% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Juvenile Justice Facilities • • • • • 69 • • This Page Left Intentionally Blank • • • i 70 1 Child Enrichment and Ed 0 6 C L. � 1 c � • • i i i i This Page Left Intentionally Blank i • Child Enrichment and Education • 1. AB3632 Mental Health Program Health Services Department - Mental Health Description: Provides individual, group & family therapy, teacher consultation, 0 case management, day treatment, residential treatment to students determined to need mental health services in order to benefit from their education. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for students in need of mental health services; Increase in the number 0 of children who succeed in school. No. of Clients: 325/year Outcome Indicators: Improved scholastic performance; Reduced number and intensity in parenting problems. Outcome Data: Not available 0 Gross Expenditures: $ 1,234,000 Financing: $ 775,000 Net County Cost: $ 459,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees and County General Funds i Budget Basis: 2.5% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Children & Adolescent Services 2. After School Program — George Miller Centers Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Provides a social recreational day care program for adolescents aged 11-22 years with developmental disabilities. Optional program. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for children with • disabilities. No. of Clients: 45 per year Outcome Indicators: Diminished intensity of parenting problems. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 420,000 • 73 Financing: $ 420,000 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources: State Funds Budget Basis: 1.33% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: George Miller Centers 3. Cal-Learn Social Service Department • Description: Provides child care and counseling services to pregnant/parenting teens who are under the age of 19 and on AFDC (TANF) while they attend high school. Mandated program. Goals: Increase the number of children on AFDC (TANF) who succeed in school; Increase the economic stability and self sufficiency of families on AFDC (TANF). No. of Clients: 408 teen parents, 1996 monthly average Outcome Indicators: Higher rates of academic success. Outcome Data: In 1996, 84 youth earned high school diplomas; 422 bonuses for satisfactory progress were paid. Gross Expenditures: $ 837,386 Financing: $ 814,527 Net County Cost: $ 22,859 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds 0 Budget Basis: Estimated - not included in Recommended Budget since allocation not yet final Budget Reference: Not applicable Initiatives: In the past year the department hired a worker to track Cal Learn teens and make child care payments. This has ensured entry into the program sooner and timely payments to child care providers. System Savings: One-half of current AFDC (TANF) recipients currently do not have a high school diploma. Studies have shown that a large percentage of recipients failed to get high school diplomas because they became teen parents and dropped out of school. By keeping teen parents in school, fewer will be welfare dependent. 74 t • 4. Center-based Infant Program - George Miller Centers i Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Provides developmental and therapeutic services to infants with developmental disabilities, infants at risk of developing handicapping conditions and families using multi-disciplinary team approach. Optional program. • Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for infants with disabilities„ or at risk infants; Support, promote and encourage the integrity of families. No. of Clients: 52 per year Outcome Indicators: Changes in children's developmental levels; Increase in the number of children who can be maintained in • their own home. Outcome Data: Not available y Gross Expenditures: $ 545,000 Financing: $ 535,000 • Net County Cost: $ 10,000 Funding Sources: State Funds and County General Funds Budget Basis: 1.72% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: George Miller Centers Initiatives: A proposal was submitted to Regional Center of the East Bay, our primary referral and funding source, to substantially expand our early intervention services. Essentially the proposal increase the range of direct therapy services (Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Therapists). Our initial projections, if the proposal is approved as submitted, would have us realizing an additional $400,000 annually. Interrelationships: Nursery Programs works cooperatively with or provides joint intervention with a number of other county services: California Children's Services, High Risk Infants Program, County Office of Education, as well as with a number of Community Based Organizations. 5. Child Development • Community Development Department - Redevelopment and Housing Description: Funds are granted to non-profit organizations to provide programs in education, prevention techniques, recreation and enrichment, and counseling. (9 programs) Discretionary program • 75 • Goals: Create opportunities for education and personal skill building. No. of Clients: 3,650 children Outcome Indicators: Increased self-esteem, health and safety. • Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 175,140 Financing: $ 175,140 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Basis: 4% of CDBG Grant Budget Reference: Community Development Department -Redevelopment 6. County Library Contra Costa County Library Description: Provides comprehensive library service to all age groups, including children. Services for children include access to books and other library resources, preschool and school-age programs, class visits, reference assistance, and volunteer services designed specifically for children and students. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for children by providing equitable access to public library services. No. of Clients: 168,308 children ages 0 to 14 in the County library • service area. Program Outcomes: More children using library services; more resources and programs for children. Outcome Data: 62% of children have library cards; from 1994/95 to 1995/96 expenditure for children's material increased 8.1%; Circulation of children's materials is 38% of total circulation; 20,795 new children's resources added to collection. Gross Expenditures: $2,035,054 Library Community Services $ 346,497 Countywide Library Services (Branch Admin and Central Services) $2,391,551 Total Financing: $2,391,551 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Library taxes, fees for service, state funds and • 76 • contributions from cities and gifts. Budget Basis: Estimated 30% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Library - Community Services Countywide Library Services (Branch Admin and Central Services) Initiatives: Several branches offer Book Buddies programs where senior citizen volunteers read to children. Homework Help Programs are in many branches where volunteers provide tutoring and other help to students with homework after school. System Savings: County libraries are used extensively by children and their parents for school assignments and recreational reading. Their existence helps children to become literate and succeed in school. Availability of library resources and programs for children help offset reductions in school library resources and programs. • Interrelationships: In 1996 the Contra Costa County Library received a major donation to improve library services to children in Contra Costa County. A long time resident of Orinda created the Wilruss Children's Trust which should generate approximately $100,000 annually. Over the last several months library staff have worked with other County departments, school districts and many other community groups working with children to develop an appropriate plan for the expenditure of the income from the trust. The plan, which will address needs expressed by these community participants, will be completed in the next 2 to 3 months. 7. Developmental Disabilities Council Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Works to improve services to people with developmental disabilities. Provides information about community resources, offers consultation to agencies and organizations, publishes bulletins and newsletters, advocates for improved services, and trains parents and others. Optional program. a Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for developmentally disabled children by increasing access to services and advocating for improved services. No. of Clients: Not applicable. Outcome Indicators: Greater access to services by developmentally disabled children; Improvements in level or number of services. Outcome Data: Not available. Gross Expenditures: $ 47,904 Financing: $ 0 Net County Cost: $ 47,904 77 i • Funding Sources: County General Funds Budget Basis: 0.15% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Public Health Grants 0 Initiatives: The Council has worked to involve its constituency in providing staff support to the Council's efforts. Staff from community based agencies, as well as parents, now take responsibility for a portion of the work formerly done by the Executive Assistant to the DD Council. This is all done on a volunteer basis. System Savings: The Council consistently works to develop programs which use multiple funding streams (i.e., blended funding) in order to reduce the burden on any one system. Development of new community resources frequently results in less expensive services which is an asset to taxpayers. Interrelationships: The majority of the work done by the Council is done in collaboration with community based agencies, schools and other systems which serve persons with developmental disabilities. It is through the concerted effort of r many programs and departments that services are provided and enhanced to our population. 8. Families for Literacy Contra Costa County Library Description: County-wide program that works with Project Second Chance, the library's adult literacy program. To help break the cycle of illiteracy, program emphasizes parent as teacher for children age 5 and under, and also works with Head Start teachers and teen moms. No program discretion with state funds; 0 limited program discretion with other funding. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for children by breaking the cycle of family illiteracy. No. of Clients: 584 (annual total) Program Outcomes: Higher rate of literacy; more resources and programs 0 promoting literacy. Outcome Data: Families Served 1995 1996 Project Second Chance 173 155 Head Start 220 225 Teen Moms 35 35 Raising a Reader 0 72 In-Library Programs 0 72 Books Distributed Project Second Chance 891 350 Head Start 1100 1100 • 78 i Teen Moms 245 245 Raising A Reader 0 800 i Number of Programs Project Second Chance 10 4 Head Start 55 49 Teen Moms 6 6 Bay Point 3 0 0 Raising A Reader 0 12 In-Library Programs 0 9 Gross Expenditures: $32,149 Financing: $32,149 Net County Cost: $ _0_ 0 -0- • Funding Source: State grant plus other grants and gifts Budget Basis: Actual - 2.2% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Countywide Library Services (Family Literacy) Initiatives: The library has collaborated with Mt. Diablo School District on the educational content, recruitment and the Parent Activity Guide for "Raising A Reader', a distance learning show on family literacy. The library has been showcased in segments that highlight library services. System Savings: Children who are raised in an environment that values education and literacy are more likely to succeed in school, be literate and be prepared for the challenges of life. • Interrelationships: Families for Literacy works with Head Start and the Teen Mom program to promote family literacy to their clientele. 9. Home-based Infant Program - George Miller Centers Health Services Department - Public Health Description: Provides in-home developmental and therapeutic services to infants with developmental disabilities, or at risk of developing handicapping conditions. Optional program. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for infants with disabilities or at risk infants; Support, promote and encourage the integrity of families. No. of Clients: 80 per year Outcome Indicators: Changes in children's developmental levels; Increase in the number of children who can be maintained in their own home. 79 i Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 185,000 Financing: $ 185,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Funds Budget Basis: 0.58% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: George Miller Centers 0 Initiatives: Continue to expand the volume of services we will provide. By increasing staff, we will be able to maximize the currently authorized reimbursable hours. We receive a rate of $72.63 for every hour of direct service provided, compared to an approx. hourly cost of $50/hour, which makes this a very cost effective service. System Savings: When our services begin, a number of other county services 0 end their services, such as High Risk Infant Project, County Office of Ed. Interrelationships: Works cooperatively with or provides joint intervention with a number of other county services: California Children's Services, High Risk Infant Programs, County Office of Education as well as with a number of Community Based Organizations. 0 - 10. Juvenile Community Services Programs Probation Department Description: County-wide programs to teach juveniles to accept personal • responsibility and "repay"society through uncompensated community service work. One program provides small group counseling to accept authority and to learn positive work habits. The second program allows select minors for volunteer work for community agencies. Optional program. Goals: Increase physical safety of communities and promote 0 justice by deterring repeat offenses by juveniles through counseling, education, and community service. No. of Clients: 985 supervised; 432 for orientation and tracking only. Outcome Indicators: Fewer repeat offenses by youth. Outcome Data: 80% success rate 0 Gross Expenditures: $ 306,749 Financing: $ 141,820 Net County Cost: $ 164,929 Funding Sources: Client Fees (4.9%), Contract Fees (41.3%), General Fund (50.4%) 0 80 i • Budget Basis: Actual - 4.4% of Recommended Budget. Budget Reference: Probation - Juvenile Services, Community Service • Program Initiatives: Beginning of a collaboration with the City of Walnut Creek to provide a specific crew of Walnut Creek youth to work on projects within Walnut Creek. System Savings: Saves child care days in Juvenile Hall; also numerous hours of services provided to the contractors. 0 Interrelationships: This program is in collaboration with the Juvenile Court and Juvenile Probation services. Referral numbers are greater than slots available, therefore a barrier is lack of funding to fund crews. This program is partially self- funded due to fees from the work accomplished. 11. Recreation Program • Community Development - Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund Description: Provides youth sports and musical equipment, sports field renovations, musical events transportation, and after school recreational activities. • Some program discretion. Goals: Provide mitigation to communities affected by new landfills and ancillary solid waste facilities; Enhance developmental opportunities for children. No. of Clients: 1750 • Outcome Indicators: Increase youth involvement in sports and music. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $ 26,200 Financing: $ 26,200 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources:. Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust Fund Budget Basis: 14.1% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Community Development Department/ Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust Fund • • 81 • • 1z Summer of Service Private Industry Council • Description: Youth community service summer program for middle school youth with first priority to children of the corporate sponsors. Very limited program discretion. Goals: Provide middle school youth with employment related • supervised community service activities. No. of Clients: 15 community service positions for 5-two week terms. Outcome Indicators: Number of weeks of community service experience. Outcome Data: 150 weeks of community service experienced for middle school aged youth. • Gross Expenditures: $37,940 Financing: $37,940 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Private Sector Corporate Donations Budget Basis: 57% of Recommended Budget • Budget Reference: PIC - Summer Youth Jobs 13. Youth At-Risk Prevention Project Community Development - Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund Description: Provide training to high risk youth in employment preparation, self esteem building, substance abuse prevention and intervention awareness, and conflictiviolence management. Some program discretion. Goals: Enhance developmental opportunities for children; • Provide mitigation to communities affected by nearby landfills and ancillary solid waste facilities. No. of Clients: 150 Outcome Indicators: Reduce destructive behavior by at risk youth. Outcome Data: Not available • Gross Expenditures: $2,000 Financing: $ 2,000 Net County Cost: $ -0- Funding Sources: Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust Fund • 82 • • Budget Basis: Actual - 1% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Community Development Department/ Keller Canyon Community Mitigation Assistance Trust Fund 14. Youth Development Cooperative Extension • Description: Help youth become responsible, contributing members of the community through a variety of methods, including: 1) direct,service programs for youth, such as 4-H clubs, 4-H groups and nutrition education programs; 2) education programs for adults who work with youth in community based organizations, schools and other agencies; 3) applied research projects which • generate new knowledge about youth and issues affecting youth and their families. Optional program. Goal: Enhance developmental opportunities for youth by broadening the knowledge base of teachers and • educators. No. of Clients: Direct service to 985 adults who serve over 10% of Contra Costa's youth population; direct service to 965 youth K-12th grade. Outcome Indicators: Each direct-service program is followed by a survey or an interview to assess program effectiveness. Success • indicators `are related to knowledge gained on the topics delivered in the particular program, (e.g. appropriate program delivery methods, youth issues/needs, teaching methods). Outcome Data: 90% of adult respondents report use of techniques and/or information provided by Cooperative Extension to enhance the service they provide to youth. Gross Expenditures: $ 154,990 Financing: $ 114,459 (not in County system) Net County Cost: $ 40,531 Finding Sources: General Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Cooperative Extension, Youth Development Initiatives: In the Youth Development program our advisor conducted a research project on using teens as cross-age teachers, presented workshops for youth- serving agencies on resiliency and service learning, and served as a link between 83 • community-based agency staff and the resources of the University of California at Davis. System Savings: All services provided by the Youth Development Advisor are • free, therefore, we save the agencies to which we provide programs the costs of consultants or trainers they might otherwise have hired. For example, in the past year we provided no-cost workshops for the CCC Office of Education, Headstart, and numerous school districts and youth serving agencies. The advisor made arrangements for personnel of the Healthy Start program to travel to UC Davis to use a sophisticated survey computer to assess the population with whom they were r working. This help saved them over one month.of a 50% staff person and provided them with a more accurate picture of the needs of those surveyed. Interrelationships: As noted above,all Cooperative Extension staff work with other programs/agencies. In addition to providing the agencies with education and University resources, we also collaborate with them through individual consultation or through consortia: Our very large Youth Development volunteer corps extend a • great deal of service to nearly 1000 4-H members of Contra Costa County. w • • • 84 Alternative Homes for 0 Ch Id, i ren Y =n w a ! 7 fi .S I y • I i G i This Page Left Intentionally Blank • i i i i i • Alternative Homes for Children 7. Adoptions Social Service Department Description: This program provides adoption services to children under the Civil and Welfare & Institutions Codes. It also processes step-parent adoptions on a fee- for-service basis. Program administration optional, aid mandated. Goals: To stabilize children's lives by placing them in adoptive homes. No. of Clients: 560 Outcome Indicators: Increase the number of children placed with legal guardians or adoptive parents; Reduction in foster care costs. Outcome Data: 120 adoption placements in 1996 175 home studies in 1996. • Gross Expenditures: $ 2,851,300 Financing: $ 2,851,300 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal and State Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Adoptions Initiatives: Combined the licensing and adoption home study unit to more efficiently utilize these resources. We have developed a joint recruitment campaign, orientation and home study process and are in the process of cross- training staff. • System Savings: A more efficient system should develop a larger pool of foster care families that are committed to adoption if reunification efforts with the birth family, prove unsuccessful. The cost savings will be the reduction in number of children in foster care. Additionally, an increase in licensed foster homes and adoptive homes should increase our State allocation in those programs, thus requiring fewer county funds. • Interrelationships: Requires the development of supports for these families in the community. Also requires collaboration with the foster care education contractors to develop training in this area. • 87 • 2. Foster Care Social Service Department • Description: Provides cash assistance to foster families providing care to dependent children. Mandated program. Goals: Improve the health and safety status of youth under foster care by providing for their basic care and special • needs. No. of Clients: 2015, 1996 monthly average Outcome Indicators: Fewer foster children will have their basic and special needs met. Outcome Data: An average of 273 children per month received special care increments. • Gross Expenditures: $ 20,695,602 Financing: $ 13,258,822 Net County Cost: $ 7,436,780 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, FC Initiatives: The department's Concurrent Planning effort should lead to lower foster care costs because of the emphasis on permanency for children. The department will increase the number of adoptions and shorten the length of time a child spends in foster care. There are other forces, such as time limited welfare reform, which could increase the number of children in foster care. 3. Foster Care/Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children Social Service Department Description: Cash assistance to provide for the needs of children who are placed into foster care through the Severely Emotionally Disturbed program. This is a multi-disciplinary program to identify and provide services to children who are not able to benefit from their education due to their severe emotional disturbance. • Mandated program. Goals: Enhance functioning of severely emotionally disturbed children who cannot remain in their own homes No. of Clients: 42 children, 1996 monthly average • 88 i • Outcome Indicators: Ensure that payments are issued in a timely and accurate manner. Outcome Data: Fewer children require hospitalization Gross Expenditures: $ 2,134,458 Financing: $ 853,783 Net County Cost: $ 1,280,675 Funding Sources: State & County General Funds • Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, FC/SED 4, Foster Home Licensing Social Service Department Description:Processes applications for foster home licenses and provides support services to licensed foster care parents. Mandated program. Goals: Ensure availability of homes that can provide a nurturing environment for children entering foster care. Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of licensed foster homes. Outcome Data: 413 licensed homes as of 12/31/96 with capacity for 983 children 60 new homes in 1996. _ Gross Expenditures: $ 651,248 Financing: $ 594,644 Net County Cost: $ 56,604 Funding Sources: Federal, State and County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Foster Home • Licensing Initiatives: Several recruitment campaigns in targeted areas were developed in 96-97 and will continue in 97-98. We were able to obtain bus stop ads, billboard space, newspaper articles and visibility in community libraries in our efforts to reach into the communities. • System Savings: The development of adequate county licensed foster homes results in a reduced need for more costly placements into Foster Family Agencies and Group Homes. Interrelationships: The Public information Officer of the department has been collaborating with community agencies to develop these recruitment resources. • 89 • • 5. Options for Recovery- Heritage Project Social Service Department Description: To recruit and train foster parents and relative caregivers to care for drug impacted children ages 0 - 3 in East and West County. After completing a 33 hour curriculum related to this topic, the foster parents and relative caregivers receive respite services. Discretionary program. • Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children No. of Clients: 74 foster homes in training Outcome Indicators: New foster homes and relative caregivers who have thorough knowledge of the needs of drug impacted • children and are able to care for them and deal with the future issues that may confront their development. Outcome Data: 74 foster homes ready to care for drug-impacted children Gross Expenditures: $ 391,363 • Financing: $ 313,091 Net County Cost: $ 78,272 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Options for Recovery • 6. Permanent Placement Social Service Department • Description: Provide an alternate permanent family structure for children who, because of abuse, neglect or exploitation, cannot safely remain at home and who are unlikely to ever return home. Services are provided on behalf of children for whom there has been a judicial determination of a permanent plan for adoption, legal guardianship or long-term foster care. No Discretion. • Goals: Ensure that children who cannot be returned home from placement are provided with an alternate family are in the most stable placement and receiving appropriate services, stressing permanency through either adoption or guardianship over long-term foster care. • 90 • • No. of Clients: 1516 children monthly average Outcome Indicators: Placement of children in the least restrictive placement. The development of guardianship for foster children. • Outcome Data: 19.7% increase in Legal Guardians. 4.7% decrease in Relative Caregivers. Gross Expenditures: $5,136,296 Financing: $4,074,898 • Net County Cost: $1,061,398 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Permanent Placement • Initiatives: Local planning for implementation of the State ME Waiver in anticipation of Federal approval in FY 97-98. The ME Waiver would allow our county to implement a plan that would permit dismissal of dependency of stable relative foster care long term placements with continued AFDC-FC payments. System Savings: Considerable savings will be achieved due to reduction in court • costs. Child Welfare administrative costs will potentially be reduced. Interrelationships: This requires the development of community support to assist relatives in providing for their kin without the need for costly child welfare resources. • • • • 91 • s • • This Page Left Intentionally Blank • • • • 92 • • • • ! I .$y. Y4 v v z yv J � l h Y • II � I Sa!fet ustice J,�� .......... .........----- ..:,> l IIS I • • III • • • This Page Left Intentionally Blank • • II • II III I • I ' • Safety and Justice 1. County General Patrol and Contract City Police Sheriff- Patrol Division Description: Serves unincorporated areas and contract cities of Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, San Ramon and Special Police Districts. The Sheriff patrol division investigates crimes as the first responder, where juveniles are frequently the victim, of highly diverse crime types. Many crimes the patrol officer investigates involve child abuse, neglect and sexual abuse. The Sheriff patrol officer,provides the first response and conducts the initial investigation and frequently provides some follow-up investigation in crimes involving illegal drugs or vice activities, theft, uncontrollable juveniles, assaults, batteries, etc. First response crime investigation often involves or targets juveniles. Patrol officers maintain close contact with Child Protective services and the District Attorney's Office.and other resource agencies. Optional Program Goals: Improve health and safety status of children suffering • from child abuse or neglect by investigating all identified juvenile cases to the point where the perpetrators can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No, of Clients: Approximately 1000 cases per year. This figure is an • extrapolation of total reports tabulated and reviewed for juvenile victims in the crime analysis statistics. It is the opinion of the Sheriff's Office, an estimate of at least 40-45% of all assistance provided to the community, is either directly or indirectly related to the safety and 0 protection of children and families. Outcome Indicators: Decreased incidence of child abuse or neglect, and an overall increase in media awareness. Outcome Data: Not available. • Gross Expenditures: $ 10,753,140 Financing: $ 8,064,855 Net County Cost: $ 2,688,285 Funding Sources: County General Fund, federal and state grants, intergovernmental revenue Budget Basis: Estimated 25% of Sheriff Recommended Budget 95 • Budget Reference: Office of the Sheriff, Field Enforcement, General Patrol Special Police Districts and Sheriff Contract Cities. 2. Domestic Violence Unit • Sheriff- Investigative Division Description:The Domestic Violence Unit was established under a one year federal grant (January 1, 1997 - December 31, 1997). The grant provides resources to the • Sheriff for a domestic violence work group that links the efforts of the Sheriff/Police, victim advocates, prosecutors, judges, health care professionals and.all other professionals having contact with families: Limited program discretion. Goals: Improve the services available for domestic violence victims. Establish a countywide (all CCC police agencies) data base collection center, intended to improve successful prosecution. A portion of the data collected in the program will specifically track incidences where children were present during domestic violence. • No. of Clients: Approximately 300-350 per year Outcome Indicators: Not completed. Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $200,000 • Financing: $200,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Short term (one year) federal grant Budget Basis: Actual - .5% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Office of the Sheriff, Field Enforcement, Investigation • Division. Upon expiration of the federal grant, the Office of the Sheriff, Investigations Division, Domestic Violence Unit will assume funding responsibility. 3. Emergency Response • Social Service Department Description: Provide in-person response, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation. Evaluate the risk to the child and determine the necessity for providing initial intake, investigation and crisis • 96 • • intervention services. Services are aimed at maintaining the child safely in his or her own home whenever possible. When that is not possible, the child will be removed and Juvenile Court action will be initiated. No discretion. Goals: To protect children from abuse and neglect. No. of Clients: 1,676 children, monthly average Outcome Indicators: Number of risk assessment investigations. Outcome Data: Responded to 20,100 referrals in 1996 • Gross Expenditures: $ 8,242,901 Financing: $ 6,539,534 Net County Cost: $ 1,703,367 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Emergency Response Initiatives: The development of the Receiving Center concept was designed to provide time for ER workers to complete more thorough assessment of children • being removed from their parent or guardian due to abuse and/or neglect. A Receiving Center will offer less than 24 hour care and will be utilized to screen children, their families and make better placements. A contract is being developed with a community provider in East county in response to an RFP which should be operational by August 1997. Our county has sponsored legislation in an effort to obtain State funding. System Savings: The goal is to make placements that will not disrupt and require social work time to place the child again. Disruptive placements usually require placement into high cost placements. More importantly, the receiving center is where concurrent planning begins and will aid in the development of better planning for children with the end goal of making better permanent plans for foster children. A reduction in out-of-home costs are anticipated. • Interrelationships: This requires coordination with our community based providers to develop a solid program. It also requires interagency collaboration with mental health and health care to arrange for assessment of children. 4. Juvenile and Dependent Children Legal Services • County Counsel - Juvenile Unit Description: Provides legal services for juvenile dependency areas (300's, termination and abandonment of parental rights proceedings, juvenile guardianships, etc.) Very limited program discretion. • 97 • • Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children. No. Of Clients: One, representing the Social Service Department and, to the extent legally allowed, involved children. Outcome Indicators: Provision of appropriate legal services for the care, protection and/or control of minor children requiring such assistance. Outcome Data: During the fiscal year, a monthly average of 119 contested juvenile hearings and trials were handled and a monthly average of 719 hours of direct legal services 0 provided. FUNCTION/ACTIVITY FY91-92 FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 FY 95-96 JUVENILE SERVICES A. Depend/Abandon Hearing 6,417 7,038 7,279 8,130 8,663 • Appearances (hrs.) B.Avg. No. Hearings Handled, 1,234 1,218 1,182 1,234 1,251 Per Deputy County Counsel C. Avg.Service Hours Per 1.3 hrs 1.33 hrs 1.37 hrs 1.32 hrs 1.29 hrs Hearing Appearance Gross Expenditures: $ 722,412 Financing: $ 561,999 Net County Cost: $ 160,413 Funding Sources: "A-87" financing plan and County General Fund. • Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget. Budget Reference: County Counsel Program B "Social Service-Probate (Public Administrator)," subprogram 3 "Dependent Children (Juvenile matters)." Initiatives: Over the past year, this office has joined with the Social Service • Department in regular training programs for involved juvenile staff and such programs will be continued in FY 1997-98. Also, attorney staff has been designated and assigned to support the Concurrent Planning program. System Savings: With approval, the Social Service Department and the County Counsel's Office are implementing in FY 1997-98 a total "A-87" financing plan program for juvenile legal services which will substantially reduce net county costs. Interrelationships: The provision of County Counsel legal services are determined to a large extent during any fiscal year by its need to respond to two types of actions by others involved with the juvenile system: first, the number of juvenile petitions and requests for the ending of parental rights filed by the Social Service Department; and second, by the degree of resistance to such Social Service • 98 • Department filings made by the attorneys representing involved children and/or their parents. 5. Juvenile Delinquency and Dependency Court Coordinated Trial Courts - Juvenile Justice Description: Adjudicates all juvenile court matters for delinquents (juveniles who • violate the law) and dependency cases (abused, neglected or abandoned children). For dependency cases, the court also oversees family reunification efforts as well - as placement, including adoption. Very limited program discretion. Goal: Improve the health and safety status of children; • increase physical safety and promote justice. No. of Petitions Filed: Delinquency -2643, Dependency - 952. No. of Cases Heard: Example: March 1997: Delinquency - 96, Dependency - 520. Outcome Indicators: Decreased instances of child abuse and neglect; fewer repeat offenses by youth. Outcome Data: Not Available. Gross Expenditure: $750,000 Financing: $404,250 Net County Cost: $345,750 Financing Sources: State Trial Court Funding, County General Fund, Birth Certificate Fees for Juvenile Dependency Mediation Budget Basis: Estimated -2.6% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Coordinated Trial Courts M Initiatives: The Courts' Juvenile Dependency Mediation Program is unique in that parties participate in mediation without attorneys. Mediation is less adversarial and seeks outcomes through agreement that are likely to be qualitatively better and more successful for youth and their families. Family members have opportunity to participate in the resolution of dependency issues, rather than subject to the independent decision-making of a judge. Interrelationships: The Juvenile Court interacts with several County departments and community-based organizations. Staff from the Probation Department, Social Service Department, Public Defender's Office and County Counsel are frequently present at juvenile hearings. Petitions for court hearings are referred to the Court by the District Attorney's Office. The Court often makes referrals or assignments • 99 • • to these offices, as well as places children in local placement facilities. The Court maintains a close working relationship with local law enforcement agencies as well as the above agencies. 6. JuveniletSexual Assault Team and Special Enforcement Unit (Narcotics and Vice) Sheriff- Investigative Division • Description: The Juvenile/Sexual Assault Team investigates crimes where juveniles are the victim, such as with child abuse, neglect and sexual abuse. The Special Investigations Unit provides initial and follow-up, investigation in crimes involving illegal drugs or vice activities. Both often involve or target juveniles. Both units maintain close contact with Child Protective Services and the District Attorney's Office. Optional program. • Goals: Improve the health and safety status of children suffering from child abuse or neglect by investigating all identified juvenile cases to the point where perpetrators can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No. of Clients: Approximately 525 cases a year. This figure was an extrapolation of total reports tabulated and reviewed for juvenile victims in the crime analysis statistics. Outcome Indicators: Decreased incidence of child abuse and neglect and an overall increase in media awareness. Outcome Data: Not available. • Gross Expenditures: $ 6,451,881 - Financing: $ 4,838,910 Net County Cost: $ 1,612,971 Funding Sources: State and Federal grants, County General Fund, other • revenue sources Budget Basis: Estimated - 15% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Office of the Sheriff, Field Enforcement, Investigation 7. Juvenile Hall • Probation Department Description: County-wide program to secure detention for minors described in Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Very limited discretion. • 100 • Goals: Increase physical safety of communities and promote justice by providing specialized care for juvenile offenders. No. of Clients: 2,500/year at JH for calendar year 1996. Outcome Indicators: Not available Outcome Data: Not available Gross Expenditures: $7,859,153 • Financing: $ 885,952 Net County Cost: $6,973,201 Funding Sources: SafeFutures (5.8%); Medi-Cal (1.9%); State (3.5%); Other (0 .1%), General Fund (88.7%) Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Recommended Budget Budget Reference: Probation - Juvenile Hall • Initiatives: Opening of Summit Center with Mental Health, County Office of Education which offers local, intensive programming for seriously disturbed youth. (See "Summit Center" in Integrated Services) System Savings: Juvenile Hall confines dangerous youth who potentially victimize the community. Interrelationships: Juvenile Hall has no control over who is placed there. The Court, as well as juvenile criminal activity in the community, determines the population. There are numerous agencies which interface and collaborate with Juvenile Hall, including police agencies, the Courts, Mental Health and the County Office of Education. 8. Juvenile Probation • Probation Department Description: Provides juvenile delinquency investigations and reports to the Juvenile Court on approximately 9,900 matters/year. Supervises 2,224 juveniles on probation, providing individualized controls, counseling and referral services to minors and their parents. Regular deputy caseloads average 88 juveniles per • officer. To maintain manageable caseloads it is necessary to place many cases on limited service caseloads. Investigation - No discretion; Supervision - Some discretion. Goals: Increase physical safety of communities and promote justice by managing juvenile delinquency investigations and supervising juveniles on probation. 101 •