Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10011996 - C61 -•a C. 60, C.61 and C.62 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 1, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulmer, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT': Cornespondence C.60 LETTER dated September 20, 1996, from W.R.Till, Eleventh Coast Guard District, Bldg. 50-6, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, requesting comment on a revised location for a new fixed highway bridge across the Carquinez Strait. ****REFERRED TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. C.61 LETTER dated September 17,1996, from Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Officer, California Board of Corrections, 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814, requesting input and suggestions regarding the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Implementation Grant Request for Proposal. ****REFERRED TO SHERIFF/CORONER AND COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER C.62 LETTER dated September 18, 1996, from the Board of Directors of the Pleasant Hill Homesites Association, 1013 Hook Avenue, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, expressing concerns regarding the proposed Pleasant Hill BART Station area development. ****REFERRED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are approved. I hereby certify that this Is a true and coned copy of On action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supe isoI on he data shown. ATTESTED. - .<oL� 4 el PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the board of Supervisors and Co my Administrator ueputy c.c.County Administrator GMEDA Director Community Development Director Public Works Director Sheriff/Coroner County Probation Officer Redevelopment Director C •;' - STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, GOVERNOR co CD y September 17, 1996 [ER CEI M CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS EP {SHERIFFS DIRECTORS,DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTIONS ARD OF SUPERv�SORS BOARDS OF SUPERVISORSN7RA COSTA OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES a� 5 Subject: Request for Input Concerning Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge CImplementation Grant Request For Proposals (RFP) 0 LL This is a request for your input and suggestions regarding the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability v Challenge Implementation Grant Request For Proposal (RFP). Comments are being sought concerning the F RFP's format and proposed procedures as well as the proposed evaluation designs and outcome measures. z W Q Our September 4, 1996 Ietter announced that SB 1760/Loclyer and Goldsmith(Chapter 133, Statutes of 1996) a provides'a total of$50 million to reduce the threat of juvenile crime and delinquency. At that time,we noted that y the planning grant Request for Proposals(RFP)would be released to the counties on September 23, 1996 with a > deadline for submission of the planning grant requests set for November 15, 1996. Sc 0 While the planning grant activity proceeds,the Challenge Grant Executive Steering Committee(ESC)will be soliciting recommendations regarding the awarding of program implementation grants from key stakeholders. IC W Input will be actively sought on the criteria,ranking,and evaluation design components for the program implementation grant(RFP). In order to start the process,we are requesting that you complete the enclosed questionnaire and invite your written comments to help insure that the grant process is being responsive to the N field. Your recommendations,comments,and the questionnaire regarding critical implementation grant C (RFP)issues and Evaluation Design and Outcome Measures need to be returned to the BOC by October H 9, 1996 so that they can be included. All responses will be reviewed and considered by the ESC. It is our V goal to have the RFP for implementation grants released in January 1997 and to have the BOC make grant UJ cc awards in May 1997. O V We encourage you include specific ideas on all aspects of the proposed process. Your thoughts on the criteria to LL be used and the ranking to be followed in making implementation grant funding decisions will be invaluable. O G Attached is a draft of the Evaluation Design and Outcome Measures for your consideration. pThe ESC plans to receive oral input from counties regarding the implementation grant process on October 18; CA 1996. In the meantime,if you have any additional questions,please telephone Criminal Justice Consultants Fred 4C Morawcznski (916)323-8627 or Al Lammers (916)323-6153 or Deputy Director Toni Hafey(916)323-8618. Z Q 0 Sincerely, 413' Thomas E.cConnell Executive Officer Attachments c:VCEACGIinput request(FM)dm BOC too Stakeholder Questionnaire for Implementation Grant RFP and Selection Process Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program Background: To qualify for consideration, county grant applications must meet specific requirements as set forth in SB 1760 (Chapter 133, Statutes of 1996). Many of those requirements are prescriptive and self explanatory. However, the Board of Corrections (BOC) is required to establish minimum standards, funding schedules and procedures for awarding these grants; the legislation does not identify specific criteria related to the Board's responsibilities in these areas. Further, counties funded through this program are required to identify goals and outcome measures related to juvenile arrest rates and success on probation and completion of restitution and community service programs. The BOC is required to create an evaluation design (please see attached draft evaluation design proposal) assessing the effectiveness of the program and to report to the legislature the results of that analysis in an interim report by March 1, 1999, and a final report by March 1, 2001. The Executive Steering Committee (ESC), appointed by the Board to provide recommendations on these issues, is interested in receiving comments, suggestions and recommendations from key stakeholders, prior to making recommendations to the Board, at the regularly scheduled BOC meeting on November 14, 1996. If you are interested in providing input on these important issues , the ESC is requesting, you complete and return this questionnaire, with any other written material you would like considered, to the BOC at 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814, by Wednesday, October 9, 1996. Please circle your response Agency (optional) I. In selecting implementation grant recipients the Board of Corrections should consider: A. The size of the eligible high-risk youth population as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments:. c:sherry/questionnaire(FM):slg 1 09/17/96 B. The applicants' demonstrated ability to administer the program as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: C. A demonstrated ability to provide and develop a continuum of responses to juvenile crime as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: D. A demonstrated ability to implement a plan that provides a collaborative and integrated approach to juvenile crime and delinquency as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: E. A demonstrated history of maximizing federal, state, local and private funding sources as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments• c:sherry/questionnaire(FM):slg 2 09/17/96 F. Demonstrated efforts to implement a multicounty juvenile justice program as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: G. The likelihood the program will continue to operate after state grant funding ends as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: II. SB 1760 requires "priority" be given to proposal which include additional funding that exceeds the 25% match. A. The Board of Corrections should consider additional match as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: cAerry/questionnaire(FM):slg 3 09/17/96 III. In determining a method of funding projects, Board of Corrections should consider: A. County population as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: B. Funding urban, suburban and rural counties as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: C. The quality of the Local Action Plan as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: D. The commitment of all components of coordinating council to achieve an effective and creative solution to juvenile crime as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: c:sherry/questionnaire(FM):slg 4 09/17/96 E. The potential effectiveness of the project as: 1. Very Significant, and more important than other selection criteria 2. Significant, but less important than other selection criteria 3. Important but not significant 4. Not significant whatsoever Comments: IV. The draft Evaluation Design and Outcome Measures proposal, if implemented: 1. Will provide information which will help deter juvenile crime 2. May provide information which will help deter juvenile crime 3. Will not provide information which will help deter juvenile crime Comments: V. If the draft Evaluation Design and Outcome Measures proposal is implemented, grantees: 1. Will provide requested information 2. May provide requested information 3. Will not provide requested information Comments: VI. I have the following comments and suggestions regarding the implementation grant request for proposal and selection process. (Please use additional pages as necessary.) c:sherry/questionnaire(FM):slg 5 09/17/96 VII. I have the following comments and suggestions regarding the evaluation design and outcome measures proposal. (Please use additional pages as necessary.) c:sherry/questionnaire(FM):slg 6 09/17/96 JUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY CHALLENGE GRANT: EVALUATION DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES(DRAFT) This document is presented for discussion purposes to raise research-oriented issues. The issues will be finalized for inclusion in the RFP inviting counties to apply for a three year implementation grant under the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Crime Accountability Challenge Grant Program. Goal of Proiect The goal of SB No.1760 is to reduce the rate of juvenile crime in California, especially violent crime. This legislation creates a grant program for counties to: 1) develop and implement a comprehensive, multiagency plan that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency that includes prevention, intervention, diversion, suppression, and incarceration, and 2) demonstrate a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. The Board of Corrections is charged with the responsibility (Sec.749.25) to create an evaluation design for the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program that will assess the effectiveness of the program. Proposed Research Desiqn What is desired in this project is to learn and document what deters juvenile criminal behavior. Recognizing that multiple jurisdictions throughout the state will participate, it will be important to obtain a commitment from each jurisdiction regarding the ongoing collection and systematic reporting of data items. Each applicant jurisdiction will be asked to submit a listing of the variables which it believes will be useful to collect. Measurements of societal adjustment that include non-correctional criteria measures of success could be included in the data mix. In cooperation with the grantees, a final core data listing will be developed to permit consistency from county to county. The collection of additional or optional data items by the counties will be encouraged as well. Since each jurisdiction in the study may target different aspects of the juvenile population, it will be important to define both the target population and the risk assessment procedures to be followed in the project. One very significant result of this effort could be to gain sufficient data and information about the population to help refine prediction of the at-risk population. - Jurisdictions will need to commit to tracking research subjects throughout the complete life of the grant. Files for the treatment and control groups will need to be maintained. Monitoring follow-up data items such as subsequent grade-point average may be necessary. On-going tracking is a particularly important yet difficult procedure to implement and may require special Board of Corrections technical assistance. Quarterly data reports, in addition to project monitoring reports, will necessarily be critical to fulfilling the evaluation assignment charged by the legislature to the Board of Corrections. Outcome Measures The most effective method for making judgments on the degree of success achieved by this project effort is to insure that adequate outcome measures are established, defined and routinely collected by grant recipients. This means that each grantee will be required to collect data items that it may not now coliect. Variables being measured must be relevant to the goals of the research and the outcome measures must be reliable, accurate, valid, feasible to collect, and cost-effective to gather. Outcome measures specified in the legislation as well as those supportive to the research intent include, but are not limited to, the following: • rate of juvenile arrests per 100,000 of population; • rate of successful completion of probation; • rate of successful completion of restitution; • rate of completion of court-ordered community service responsibilities; • school performance; • school attendance/truancy; • work status; • types of additional offenses, and • recidivism. Research Results It is important to define what is to be learned and achieved from this funding effort, including, but not limited to definitive information on the effectiveness of intervention on juveniles. As an example, the attached exhibit of possible data results is a visual means of explaining the relationship between risk-assessment scores and intervention. To produce this type of chart at the project's completion, during the three year life of the project it would be necessary to: 1. Collect the same data on all research subjects; 2. Use the same criterion measures on all research subjects; 3. Develop a true experimental design with matched control and treatment groups and randomly assign the subjects; 4. Group diverse treatments into one overall treatment group; 5. Assess subgroups based on such factors as age, gender, etc., and 6. Provide the kinds of measurements that would allow computing appropriate statistics. Going beyond the above example, final research results must satisfy at least four groups of citizens: the legislators who supported the law; the people of California who provide the tax funds to support such innovative projects; the professionals in the field charged with implementing the projects, and researchers in the field whose interest is adding knowledge to the discipline. To insure that response is appropriate to all population segments, the C.O.R.D.S. approach will be followed. Upon completion of the research project, this permits - reviewers ermits -reviewers of the study results to conclude that the Criterion Of Really Doing Something has been effectively implemented and achieved. NOTE:.,This table is not based upoff actual'data-. It is a hypothetical.example, ddsi4ned to illustrate.the kinds of analyses thatwe would,hope to perform at.. the coffel'usiom of �E EXAMPLE TABLE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK ASSESSMENT SCORES AND THE EFFECTS OF TREATMENT VERSUS NON TREATMENT hON A SAMPLE OF JUVENILES 10 9 �'NT No Treatment Control Group �-.T Treatment :.Intervention-Group 8 Number Mean Referrals' w . 7 CJ: . NT x W L 6 5.8 ' ILL" NT 5 4.8 T 5.5W NT m NT 38 4.0 4 NT NT 3.5 T Z 3.0 3.1 I 4.0 3 NT NT 2.8 NT 2.2 T * T 2.8 =, 2 1.8 T T 5 2.6 T 2.2 2.2 2.0 1 T" 1.8 1.5— I FM 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 , 41-50 51-60 r1-70 1 71-80 J 81-90 191-100 � RISK ASSESSMENT;,SCORE To Produce this kind of chart at the end of the project we would need: 1) the same risk assessment to be done on all research subjects; 2) the same criterion measures on all research subjects; 3) a true experimental design with matched control and treatment group and random assignment of subjects; 4) some basis for grouping different treatments into one overall treatment group; 5) the ability to look at these results for subgroups based upon such factors as age, gender, etc. 6) the kind of measurement that would allow us to compute the appropriate statistics.