Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02272001 - SD.2 A TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS V, .y Contra FROM: Mark DeSaulnier Costa Federal Glover s County DATE: March 6,2001 N SUBJECT: Energy Site Exploration V SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION DIRECT the County Administrator and Department of Community Development to aggressively explore possible sites subject to the authority of the County and feasibility for the placement of power plants,keeping in mind that any project's impact on the environment,especially air quality, must be minimal and within current acceptable limits. REFER this item to the Internal Operations Committee for oversight, with a report to return to the full Board within 45 days. BACKGROUND: California's electric system is complex and large(Attachment 1)and part of a power grid serving the western United States—the area showing the greatest population growth in the last decade (Attachment 2). Due to population and demand growth combined with a lack of power plant construction, California's peak load demand for power has grown far faster than its power capacity (Attachment 3). Additionally, California's power facilities are collectively very old (Attachment 4). These factors, combined with the many decisions related to the deregulation of California's electricity industry,have led to the current severe energy shortage. As of January 17,2001,Governor Gray Davis proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist due to the energy shortage in California, stating that "reasonable conservation, allocation and service restriction measures will not alleviate this energy supply emergency", therefore additional measures must be taken to increase power supply. The three elements of the Governor's energy plan are stabilization,conservation and generation. On February 8,2001,Governor Davis issued �1S CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE f 1 APPROVE OTHER V SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER DIRECTED the County Administrator and Community Development Department to return to the Board of supervisors within 45 days with a report on possible sites for placement of power plants, and a comprehensive overview relative to the energy crisis. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:44 .A/a n L AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT:Nonce, ABSTAIN: -2ZC OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHO/WN. ATTESTED JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK O THE BOARD OF AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contact: Supervisor Mark DeSaulNer(9Z5)646-5763cc: County Administrator /PERVISORS DEPUTY Community Development Director LO Committee staff several Executive Orders directing local and state agencies to undertake a number of specific steps to expedite power plant development to increase power generation, including the provision of commercial loans and expediting permitting processes. Supervisors for Districts IV and V have independently begun discussions regarding potential sites with possible project partners. Given that the energy shortage emergency poses a significant threat to public health, safety and welfare, as well as imposing hardship on many residents through increased power costs, it is important that the County do everything possible within its sphere to increase the power supply for County residents and employers. s H Soso UPS oS .y Q '.� O CCS 4)%goo s- �„� Ulm tU � t13 . �! Z co 0 Soso Ulm 0000 0000 i.- o N coUlm oc: (7) Wo 0 'z3 tip Q o►. t� , (n c o Wo U)(0 -c Zo 0p N Lil + Kc co cn co LL 1� ; •� " \ ° 11 is 1S L \\l O N O � n _O O •a El Q o sr (� tij.Y. C 1 -:w�lA. - �' '�•'X4'4 I+yt SSI T }C f r$•Ij ti`A'�'S-� y=• Q a yw nAll � r 3.-tifs° }pi`d }�.• {y ,Ru ,G 4f{.3.1�°J'�ai� ,�7�t /�"yti ', Q;,•b V, ,r. p �i 1� • cs N J ns d Q C • ir+ co :i s d � • ,�r G 0 Q 4do v 00 t4 t4 0 0 o o 00 �^ N W o 0 o, co Q► a o , � } • w ' 2 O N N 1 O U o Z O LO LO 0000 0000 • w • • • U tai CLS C.� .• c4i Vol"f]- 4.� • - .• .• tP 0000 l Speaker List SD.2 March 6, 2001 Dan Torres, 578 Fletcher Street, Bay Point; Eric Hasseltine; Mike Lengyel, 545 Central Ave; Evely Freitas; Michael Mitchell, Golden State Power, P.O. Box 439056 PMB 66, San Ysidro. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM <( ' (THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) Com�p�lete�this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: l 13ItJ �©",671Phone: 'I-S-78'-) 7 Address: S7—7 g '�G t4-CYz S 1 ► City: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item# S'� Z Date: D r My comments will be: general _ for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the"Request to Speak"form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. 6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear. REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: L !'T*t SSiSL-�1►`� Phone: Address: city: I am speaking for myself _ or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �D Date: My comments will be: general '� for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form d place it in the box near the speakers'rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: MIKe, 4' Phone: �� 3 Address: s— C,0 ` l�- City: I am speaking for myself ✓ or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item SD2 Date: My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider: C� SPEAKERS l. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. �. i iiliii your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. 6. The Chair.may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear. j -a- RECt : ED MAR 6 2001 CLERK EOARD OF S PERVISORS March 6, 2001 Co rRA COS!A CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Re: Board Agenda Item SD2 (Power Plant Sites) Dear Sirs: In your consideration of power plant sites, I must mention that there already are seven power plants in operation or under construction in the Pittsburg/Bay Point area. These power plants have a generating capacity of about 3,500 megawatts,enough to power 3.5 million households under the formula of 1,000 households per megawatt. These seven plants are authorized to emit more than 6,000 tons of pollutants annually. The first big new power plant since deregulation, the Los Medanos Energy Center, is about to go on-line with 559 megawatts in a few weeks to help solve the California energy crisis. The plant is less that a half mile from my home. The Pittsburg/Bay Point area, less than 100,000 population, is shouldering a big burden here. I ask that you take a step today to monitor the health of people in this area by referring to your county Health Services Department the concept below: for an opinion on its feasibility: 1. A long-term study of health ailments within two miles of LMEC should be conducted jointly by the county and the Los Medanos Healthcare District, whose boundaries approximate the Pittsburg/Bay Point area. (Six of the seven power plants are within approximately two miles of LMEC. 2. The temporary air monitoring station at the fairgrounds in Antioch should be made permanent and relocated to the roof of the Los Medanos Health Center. 3. A computer server and terminals should be purchased to provide health data and air monitoring information. A request was made to the California Energy Commission for$200,000 for the above purposes. A CEC committee instead has recommended the matter be negotiated with Calpine under its"good neighbor"policy. The healthcare district wants more information and wants to hear from all parties April 9 before deciding its position. It would be helpful if the county health experts would review the concept and report back by April 9 so that when everybody is watching the startup of the new power plant, health monitoring will have a place in the celebration. Mice Lengyel ,t t m0 0 N 0 V 0 m n = 0 m m 0 m v o0 m m m m < m Na i tA D D m SiN J m °D ` m I D � ao D O D ao 0 � 0° 0 -D-i O0 0 m f • I I W u W �_ u W Mu W a: ~ e V 0 O co Q O � o � < O QQ O W = z i D- m 3 3 3 oa W Q O W Q QL W W W W p �U u a° u z 3 � w z 3 N w °z N 0 0 0 R CEIVED March 6, 2001 MAR 6 2001 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine Street CONTRA COSTA CO. Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Re: Board Agenda Item SD2 (Power Plant Sites) Dear Sirs: In your consideration of power plant sites, I must mention that there already are seven power plants in operation or under construction in the Pittsburg/Bay Point area. These power plants have a generating capacity of about 3,500 megawatts,enough to power 3.5 million households under the formula of 1,000 households per megawatt. These seven plants are authorized to emit more than 6,000 tons of pollutants annually. The first big new power plant since deregulation,the Los Medanos Energy Center, is about to go on-line with 559 megawatts in a few weeks to help solve the California energy Crisis. r The plant is less that a half mile from my home. The Pittsburg/Bay Point area, less than 100,000 population, is shouldering a big burden here. I ask that you take a step today to monitor the health of people in this area by referring to your county Health Services Department the concept below: for an opinion on its feasibility: 1. A long-term study of health ailments within two miles of LMEC should be conducted jointly by the county and the Los Medanos Healthcare District, whose boundaries approximate the Pittsburg/Bay Point area. (Six of the seven power plants are within approximately two miles of LMEC. 2. The temporary air monitoring station at the fairgrounds in Antioch should be made permanent and relocated to the roof of the Los Medanos Health Center. 3. A computer server and terminals should be purchased to provide health-data and air monitoring information. A request was made to the California Energy Commission for$200,000 for the above purposes. A CEC committee instead has recommended the matter be negotiated with Calpine under its"good neighbor" policy. The healthcare district wants more information and wants to hear from all parties April 9 before deciding its position. It would be helpful if the county health experts would review the concept and report back by April 9 so that when everybody is watching the startup of the new power plant,health monitoring will have a place in the celebration. Mice Lengyel �. .. , � S � t' `{{ f ♦ t 3 '+ '1. � � ` 5 1 1. _ ♦.� ... "• � t .. ,. � - �i • . REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM � �CIL (THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: (`� �,(v,�_� i-���2�� Phone: 6[4- 2 52- 0810 Address: P.a.&x y39°o5*/-F�MR-�C� City: 50,K YSIdco . �,� q�z►y�-905 I am speaking for myself or organization: 4f;s,o Wev, 5464,0 Pa«o c (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date : 3-6-o My comments will be: general X for X against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the"Request to Speak"form(on the reverse side)in the box next to the speaker e-v- � microphone before your agenda item is to be considered 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak-into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating'your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. t 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. 6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear. To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: STEVEN L. BAUTISTA, COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER Costa County DATE: February 27, 2001 SUBJECT: SCHIFF-CARDENAS CRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2000 SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT the attached Resolution which appoints. County Probation Officer Steven L. Bautista as the Chair of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and authorizes said County Probation Officer, on its behalf, to submit and sign Contra Costa County's Application for Approval for Schiff- Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 funding as well as related contracts, amendments or extensions with the State of California Board of Corrections. This Resolution also identifies the members of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and provides necessary assurances to the State of California Board of Corrections as required in the grant application. FISCAL IMPACT: $3,285,593 is available to Contra Costa County through the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000. There are no match requirements for the award. BACKGROUND: The State of California Board of Corrections, pursuant to the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Assembly Bill 1913) as signed into law by the Governor of the State of California on September 7, 2000, is providing a total allocation of $121,300,000 to enable local government units to develop and implement a comprehensive multi-agency juvenile justice plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: '_YES SIGNATURE: /� / —RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ^OTHER SIGNATUREISI: ACTION OF BOARD ON- - - Fahrnar�i 27, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED.X— OTHER— VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 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. Contact: Dave Grossi, 3-4199 cc: County Probation Officer ATTESTED February 27, 2001 County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Auditor-Controller SUPERVISORS AND CO NTY ADMINISTRATOR Board of Corrections via Probation (14A0 BY ODEPUTY M382 (10/88) 2 - The legislation requires that this plan be developed by the Local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Contra Costa County's allocation for this purpose is $3,285,543. The Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 requires that the Local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council be chaired by the County Probation Officer and that the comprehensive multi-agency juvenile justice plan developed by this body be approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Funding from the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (CPA 2000) will allow Contra Costa County to maintain funding for significant children's services. A number of successful grant funded programs will be reaching the end of their funding cycle and have been identified as appropriate for funding under CPA 2000. Funding will also be available for new programs identified as priorities by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. The following summarizes the programs proposed for funding under CPA 2000. I. Sustain Hiah School Challenge Grant Team Program. Initiated with Challenge I funding, the high school Challenge Team program focuses on placing probation officers in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and specified services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth. The program strongly stresses a collaboration among schools, Probation and police officers to provide supervision and treatment services for youth. Early evaluative data has indicated a reduction in truancy and offending behavior for those youth in the program. The current funding source for the high school Challenge Teams will terminate in June of 2001. CPA 2000 funding allows the County to continue funding for this effective program. II. Sustain SafeFutures Program. Funded by a Federal grant scheduled to conclude September 30, 2001, the SafeFutures program contains a number of approaches to enhance the County's juvenile justice continuum of care. These approaches include intensive aftercare for youth leaving the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, the Summit Center that provides specialized mental health treatment services and the Volunteers in Probation program where more than 70 volunteers work with minors as mentors. CPA 2000 funding will allow the County to sustain these programs currently funded by the SafeFutures grant. The Aftercare Program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility will also be augmented by two additional probation officers, allowing for a longer period of tracking and supervision for those minors graduating from the program. The Summit Center program is a collaboration between the Probation Department, Children's Mental Health Services, and the County Office of Education. CPA 2000 funding will allow the County to continue to fund the Probation staff working at the facility and allow for the continued leveraging of other funding sources. 3 - The Volunteers in Probation program has been successful in recruiting, training and matching volunteer mentors with youngsters in the Juvenile Justice System. III. Expand the High School Challenge Team Program to Middle Schools. As previously discussed, Contra Costa County utilized Challenge I grant funds to establish high school Challenge Teams. Evaluations of the high school-based model show that the program produces positive outcomes for participants. Given this success, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council would like to see this program instituted in the middle schools. It is anticipated that an expansion of the high school Challenge Team concept to middle schools will allow for earlier interventions and positive outcomes for participating youth. IV. Create a Community Probation Program. The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council proposes that Contra Costa County establish a Community Probation Program that will outstation eight probation officers in various police agencies throughout the County to focus on high risk youth, at-risk youth and chronic offenders. The outstation probation officers will work non-traditional hours and collaborate with police agencies, schools and community- based organizations to help prevent offending behavior. The community probation model involves the use of multi- disciplinary teams, depending heavily upon collaboration between police and probation officers, schools, recreation departments and other community-based organizations. An evaluation of a similar program in Alameda County showed it produced successful results. Participants experienced a higher rate of completion of probation and restitution commitments. Also, the increased visibility of deputy probation officers within the community improved community relations and fostered better collaboration with other law enforcement agencies. V. Establish a Family Intervention and. Substance Abuse Program. This program will serve to provide supervision and intervention services for those families with children in the home where an adult is on probation for a substance abuse related offense. The overall goal of the program is to reduce the need for out-of-home placements for children whose risks are heightened by their parents involvement in the justice system and with substance abuse. In order to meet the needs of the program participants, a strong collaborative effort will be made with other County departments and community-based programs. The program will employ a multi-disciplinary team approach to provide families with a' variety of intervention and support services. Such services may include family counseling, job skills training, alcohol and drug treatment services, conflict resolution training, parenting skills classes and after school recreation programs. - 4 - VI. Fee For Service Fundina. To more effectively respond to the true needs of clients, $300,000 of the CPA 2000 funds have been designated for the purchase of services on an as needed basis. The goal of this approach is to effectively address the service needs of youth on an individual basis in order to provide meaningful services for youth. Examples of services that could be purchased on a fee for service basis include stipends for youth to receive computer training, Mental Health services, parenting skills classes or anger management classes. IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 2001/83 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa desires to undertake a certain project designated the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 to be funded in part from funds made available through the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 Program administered by the Board of Corrections of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County hereby appoints County Probation Officer Steven L. Bautista as the Chair of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council; and AUTHORIZES said County Probation Officer, on its behalf, to submit and sign Contra Costa County's Application for Approval for Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 funding as well as related contracts, amendments, or extensions with the State of California; and IDENTIFIES the following individuals as members of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council: Chris Adams, Community Member David Coleman, III, Public Defender John Cullen, Director, Department of Employment and Human Services Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors Shirley Marchetti, Executive Director, REACH Project, Inc. Ruth Ormsby, Child/Adolescent Program Chief, Department of Mental Health Joe Ovick, County Superintendent of Schools Warren Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner Larry Shaw, Chief of Police, City of Brentwood, and Representative, Police Chiefs Association Gary Yancey, District Attorney Taalia Hasan, Executive Director, Youth Service Bureau ASSURES that the County of Contra Costa Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan has been developed and provided to the Board of Corrections in a format determined by the Board of Corrections not later than May 1, 2001; ASSURES that the County of Contra Costa has adhered to the requirements of the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 and of the Board of Corrections regarding the submission of the Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan; ASSURES that the County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has reviewed and approves the County's Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan; and - 2 - ASSURES that the County of Contra Costa upon approval of the County's Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan and receipt of Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act 2000 funds, will adhere to the requirements of the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 regarding the expenditure of said funds and the submission of required reports to the Board of Corrections. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD ON February 27, 2001 by a unanimous vote of the Supervisors present. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and Seal of the Board of Supervisors on this 27th day of February, 2001. PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By D Deputy RESOLUTION N0. 2001/ 83 J*: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL Steven L. Bautista County Probation Officer and Chair, JJCC Chris Adams Community Member David Coleman, III Public Defender John Cullen Director, Department of Employment and Human Services Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors Taalia Hasan Executive Director, Youth Service Bureau Shirley Marchetti Executive Director, REACH Project, Inc. Ruth Ormsby Child/Adolescent Program Chief, Mental Health, Department of Health Services Joe Ovick County Superintendent of Schools Warren Rupf Sheriff-Coroner Larry Shaw Chief of Police, City of Brentwood, and Representative, Police Chiefs Association Gary Yancey District Attorney MCC.0 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background and Summary of Contra Costa County's Juvenile Justice System (1) A. Juvenile Justice Trends (1) B. Juvenile Hall Projections (8) C. Profiles of Youth in the Justice System (15) D. Intake/Release Study (32) E. Current Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime (38) 1. Continuum of Care (38) 2. Out-of-Home Placements (38) 3. Continuum of Services (39) F. Present Role of Collaborations (5 1) 1. History (5 1) 2. Collaboration on Policy Making(53) 3. Collaboration in Service Delivery (53) G. Strengths and Challenges of the Current System (55) 1. Strengths (55) 2. Challenges (56) II. Identification and Prioritization of Neighborhoods, Schools and Other Areas Facing a Significant Risk from Juvenile Crime (57) III. Local Juvenile Justice Action Strategies (85) A. Sustaining and Enhancing Services (85) B. Leveraging Funds (85) C. Expanding Services Within Communities (85) D. Continuing Emphasis on Collaboration(86) E. Objectives and Outcome Measures to Determine Effectiveness of Strategies (86) IV. Proposed Programs (88) A. Sustain High School Challenge Team Program (88) B. Sustain SafeFutures Program (89) C. Expand the High School Challenge Team Program to Middle Schools (94) D. Create a Community Probation Program(97) E. Create a Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program(100) F. Other Budgetary Items (102) G. Development of Coordinated Information Sharing Systems (105) Appendix 1: Juvenile Justice Programs Proposed for Crime Prevention Act 2000 Funding Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 1 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM This Comprehensive Multinenev Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP) builds upon more than a decade of work and activism in Contra Costa County. The County has been engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to improve its juvenile justice system for more than fifteen years, beginning with the creation of a Juvenile Justice Master.Plan in the mid 1980s. The impetus for this decade plus ofplanning and innovation was not tied to grant opportunities, but to concerns within the County to attend to the welfare of its youth and citizens. Through ongoing and inclusive planning and implementation processes, Contra Costa County has built successful programs that directly respond to a variety of needs. .In the past three years alone, the County has implemented several new projects to enhance its continuum of care, most notably the Edgar Transition Center, a day reporting program for boys leaving the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF); the Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center and two Challenge II programs that focus specifically on services for girls. As this CivIJJP will illustrate, the variety of programs, collaboratives and approaches available in Contra Costa County combine to create a deep and diverse response to delinquency prevention, family empowerment and youth resiliency enhancement. Contra Costa County's application for Crime Prevention Act 2000 funding represents just the latest step in an ongoing effort to respond to the needs of its juvenile justice clients, families and the community as a whole. An emphasis on involving partner agencies in providing, brokering and integrating services and identifying unmet needs goes hand in hand with the County's commitment to evaluating programs and continuing what works. The following discussions summarize trends in justice system variables in the County and describe in detail the profile of youth in the justice system. A. JUVENILE JUSTICE TRENDS 1992-1997 Introduction This study was conducted to examine the numbers of youth involved with the juvenile justice system as the general population of youth in Contra Costa County is rapidly rising. The youth population (ages 10-17) rose 19% in the six-year period between 1992 and 1997. In the same period, the average daily population at Juvenile Hall rose 28.7%. This brief study of the trends in number of bookings, length of stay, types of offenders, placements and referrals hopes to identify the direction Contra Costa County is going.t Data was taken from Contra Costa County's Juvenile Hall statistics(1989-1998)as well as the California Criminal Justice Profile 1997 for Contra Costa County published by the California Department of Justice. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan z Results In 1992, the average daily population at the Hall was 126.8. That figure had risen to 175.9 in 1997 revealing an almost 29% increase in the Hall population in six years. The largest single jump was in 1994 when the population grew 22% in a single year. At the same time, the number of bookings decreased by 11.5% while the average length of stay increased by 46% from 17.2 days in 1992 to 25.1 days in 1997. The ratio of average daily Hall population to the general youth population has remained fairly stable over the past 10 years. In 1989, there were 1.52 youths in Juvenile Hall per 1000 youth. In 1997, the rate was 1.53 per 1000. This ratio dropped to 1.41 in 1992 and again in 1996, and peaked in 1995 at 1.63. Overall, the percent change from 1992 to 1997 is 8.5%, a moderate increase. The ratio of the average daily Hall population to the number of arrests increased 23.8% from 1992 to 1997, but over the longer term, the ratio has remained fairly stable at about two and a half youth at the Hall per 100 juvenile arrests. In 1989, 65% of arrested youth were booked into Juvenile Halt. In 1997, that number was only 38.4%. This represents a 41% decrease in the ratio of bookings to arrests. This suggests that admissions criteria have been increasingly stringent, reflecting the on-going Hall overcrowding. However, since the mid-nineties, this ratio has remained fairly stable. In 1997, there were 2052 youth on probation in the community. The data documented a 38.6% increase from 1993 to 1997. However, the number of referrals to probation decreased 11.5% from 1992 levels (28% from 1989), suggesting the youth who are placed on probation are more serious offenders who require a longer period of probation'supervision. Between 1992 and 1997, arrests increased by 5.6% for felonies and 1.1% for misdemeanors. The number of arrests in 1997 was basically the same as 1990-91 levels. However, felony arrests of girls increased remarkably (26%). Likewise, the number of violent felony arrests increased 15% and felony drug charges increased 13%. Going back to 1988,juvenile felony arrests have increased 22%, female felony arrests increased 55% and violent felony arrests increased 82"/x. Felony drug arrests have actually decreased 26% since 1988. The number of drug arrests peaked in 1988, hit a low in 1992, and have been creeping back up since then; still they remain lower than 1988 levels. The-number of status offenders was below 1988 levels in 1997 (256 offenders). In 1992, the number grew to 451, and has since decreased 43.2%. It is interesting to examine the reasons for a youth's stay in Juvenile Hall. In 1992, 49% of the youth in the Hall were predisposition cases. A year later, 64% of the youth were predisposition cases. By 1997, the number had moved back down to 52%. The proportion of youth awaiting placement decreased from 30% in 1992 to 21% in 1997, reflecting perhaps concerted efforts by the county to reduce the use of out-of-home placements (e.g. by expanding the placement diversion caseload). Youth awaiting transfer to the"ranch" rose dramatically (108.6%) in the 6- Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 3 year period. 1993 saw a low of 13.3% of youth at the Hall awaiting ranch transfer, and by 1997, youth awaiting ranch transfer were 25% of the total Hall population. Finally, the number of juvenile arrests per 100,000 youth was compared to the statewide ratios. In 1992, Contra Costa County was on par with state statistics on arrests. The State and Contra Costa both recorded about 6,700 arrests per 100,000 youth. Since 1992, this ratio has been falling for both the State and Contra Costa, with Contra Costa showing more rapid progress. The number of arrests per 100,000 fell 14% for Contra Costa and fell 8% for the State. Discussion It is clear that the Juvenile Hall population is mildly increasing (<10%) in proportion to population growth while numbers of arrests are actually decreasing compared to the total youth population. This is a significant indicator that the kinds of crimes and the lengths of stay are changing. Arrests for violent crimes and crimes by females are increasing much faster than overall arrests. In fact, arrests of males in general have reached a plateau (albeit a high one), and may even be slightly falling. It is notable that around 1994, Hall population, predisposition cases, ADP of youth awaiting transfer to the ranch and average lengths of stay all skyrocketed, while annual bookings, referrals to probation, ADP of youth awaiting placements and status offenders dropped considerably. 1 � Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 4 Table I- 1 Year Variable 1992 1993 19941 1995 1996 1997 % Change Total County Youth Population 89800 93300 96800 100200 103800 106900 19% Average Daily Hall Population (ADP) 126.8 118.7 154.3 163.7 146.7 .163.2 29% Annual Bookings 2685 2250 2069 2299 2450 2376 -12% Annual Referrals to Probation 8386 7646 7255 7704 7239 7489 -11% ADP- Predisposition 62.7 75.9 89.3 85.9 71 84.2 34% ADP -Awaiting Placement 37.7 23.4 27.2 36.8 35.6 33.9 -10% ADP -Awaiting Ranch 19.8 15.9 32.5 36.8 36.8 41.3 109°/a ADP -Awaiting CYA 6.6 3.5 5.3 4.2 3.3 3.8 -42% Youth on Probation --- 1480 14681 17 2052 2052 39% Juvenile Arrests - Felony 2078 2165 2121 1926 1993 2194 6% Male 1788 1897 1826 1663 1678 1829 2% Female 290 268 295 263 315 365 26% Violent 486 473 540 533 463 561 15% Property 1177 1235 . 1096 984 1130 1210 3% Drug 186 188 240 194 180 210 13% Misdemeanor Arrests 3951 3573 3577 3903 3805 3995 1% Male 2984 2590 2628 2900 2812 2946 -1% Female 967 983 949 1003 993 1049 8% Status Offenses 451 444 283 390329 256 -43% Total Juvenile Arrests 6480 6182 5981 6219 6127 6445 -1% No. of Arrests to Probation 4297 4013 3981 4310 4425 4527 5% Ratio Arrests to Probation 0.663 0.649 0.666 0.693 0.722 0.702 6% Ratio ADP to Population 0.00141 0.00127 0.00159 0.00163 0.00141 0.00153 8% Ratio-ADP to Arrests 0.021 0.021 0.027 0.0281 0.025 0.026 25% Predispositions to ADP 0.494 0.539 0.579 0.525 0.484 0.516 4% Average Length of Stay 17.2 19.3 27.2 25.98 21.9 25.1 46% Ratio-Annual Bookings to Arrests 0.445j 0.3921 0.363 0.394 0.4231 0.384 -14% Arrests per.100,000 6714 6150 5886 5817 5586 5790 -14% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 5 Chart I—2 Juvenile Arrests per 100,000 8000 _ ti 7000 F y Y . IVYI•Nl r r 6000 Cn Q� 5000 ■ Q 4000 Statewide : ❑Contra Costa County 3000 r y 1 1 � 2000 gni. 1000 0 I 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 6 Chart I -3 Juvenile Felony Arrests, 1992 -1997 2500 2000 r - �—Total Felony Arrests —�--Male Juvenile Arrests s a 1500 } b —6 -Female Juvenile Arrests 0 hn (U Ufa a Violent Felony Arrests E 1000 z —)—Property Felony T Arrests 500 —+—Drug Felony Arrests 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 i iYear i Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 7 Chart I - 4 Average Daily Hall Population, 1992 -1997 180 160 . 140 —♦—Average Daily Hall Population (ADP) 120 —a—ADP- Predisposition 100 Cases 9 CL o �—ADP-Awai ti'n Q 80 Placement if —e—ADP - Awaiting 60 Transfer to Ranch 40 ADP - Awaiting Transfer to CYA 20 0 � * 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 . Year Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 8 B. JUVENILE HALL PROJECTIONS 2000-2010 Introduction Predicting the future population of Juvenile Hall requires taking into account many factors that are sometimes difficult to predict. For example, changes in policy, or a court judge turnover may shift a Hall population trend up or down. For this study, population growth and historic trends were the major factors involved, since they are the most reliable statistics. It is also assumed that there are an unlimited number of Hall beds, so lack of space does not influence the statistic more than in previous years. Three scenarios were produced to determine the average daily population(ADP) of Juvenile Hall through the year 2010. The first is a simple trendline projection. This method is a basic linear extrapolation that assumes the ADP will continue at the same rate it has for the historic period (1992-1997). Thus, if no changes to policy occur, we would expect the growth in ADP to occur linearly. The second method is a mathematical calculation strongly based on population growth. For this method, we used the following equation: ADP =Total Juvenile Population X Intakes per Capita X Average Length of Stay 365 days/year Using population projections from the California State Department of Finance, we calculated a second and third possible scenario for the future Hall population. The second one is the"average scenario". This scenario assumes that the intake rate is going to be somewhere around the average intake rate over the historic period (see Trends data). The average length of stay was also assumed to be the average over the historic period. Thus, the average scenario takes into account the inevitable ups and downs that are not always predictable. In this case, the average length of stay was 22.78 days and the number of intakes per capita was about 24 per 1000 juveniles. The third scenario is the "high scenario". It can also be thought of as the worst case scenario, since the values used were the highest observed values from the historic period. In this case, the number of intakes per capita was 29.9 intakes per 1000 and the average length of stay was 25.98 days. As a matter of interest, we also chose to examine the trends in violent offenders and female offenders. From the Trends section of this report, we observed that the number of violent felony arrests rose at a rate three times greater than the overall rate of felony arrests since 1992, and female felony Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 9 arrests rose twice as fast as other felonies. For these projections, we decided to use a simple trendline, which relies more heavily on the patterns of historic data rather than mere population growth as a variable. When making these types of projections, it is best not to try to predict too far into the future nor use data that is too out-of-date, as outside factors can quickly make a distant prediction statistically inaccurate. This study, therefore, should be updated annually. Results Using the trendline scenario, the ADP of Juvenile Hall will reach about 250 by the year 2008. This is not far from the high scenario, meaning that current policy is producing a result is in line with the high scenario. Although the juvenile population of Contra Costa County has risen rapidly over the past six years, California's Department of Finance, which provided the census predictions, sees a slowing in that growth trend. From now until 2005, the population is expected to increase 5.1%, compared with the 19% increase marked between 1992 and 1997. Then, the juvenile population is actually expected to decline. By 2010, the population should decline to 2001 levels. This population trend will greatly affect the Juvenile Hall population. It can be predicted that the Hall population will likewise peak in 2005 and then slightly decline. This is based on the assumption that other factors in society remain fairly stable, such as the economy and justice policy, and that population alone is the single greatest variable. In the high scenario, the average daily Hall population would peak at 239 juveniles per day in the next decade. To translate ADP into bed requirements, a typical planning assumption is to add 15 —20% to the ADP. This allows for a peak in capacity, classification and temporary closure of certain sections of the facilities for repairs. Thus, an ADP of 239 suggests a need for• up to 287 beds (239 x 120°/x). According to trendline data, female felony arrests will continue to climb. In 1997, there were 365 female felony arrests, and at the present rate, this number will reach 500 by the year 2009. As noted above, female felony rates are increasing four times as fast as the total felony rate. Violent felonies are also predicted to increase. According to the trendline data, the number of these offenders will rise from 561 in 1997 to 650 in 2009. Also, by 2008 the ADP of violent offenders will be around 90 of a total of 166 beds (average scenario). Since 1988, violent felony arrests have risen 82%and female felonies have risen >j%. Since 1992,these rates rose 15%and 26%respectively. • Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 10 Chart I—5 Average Daily Hall Population-Trendline Projection 300 250 200 163.7 163.2 154.3 146.7 CL 1 6.8 Average Daily Population 0 1 Q 18.7 — —Projected ADP-Trendline I 100 -- y=7.8686x+ 118.03 50 Fe=0.6049 0 04 rn ami 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn Year Contra Costa County Local Action Plan I 1 Chart I - 6 Projected Average Daily Hall Population, 2000-2010 I I 300 i 250 230 234 237 238 239 239. 238 238 233 2 I 225... .. i 200 1 1 1 1 1 1.. 1 1 Projected ADP-Average 0 150 Scenario ¢ p Projected ADP-Figh Scenario I 100 i 50 O N CO 'T to (D fl- CO (n O r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N Year I Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 12 Chart I-7 Female Felorry Arrests 600 500 I ca 400 r 90 e Female Felony Arrests 315 a - - —Projected Female Felonry Arrests Q 200 100 - - - - - y = 13.829x+250.93 - - =0.4805 0 N t CO O O N 'ct O O O O O O O O O O O O — O M O O O O O O O O Year I Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 13 Chart I—8 Violent Felony Arrests 700 600 540:::::::: 561 533: l88:.: -; 4..73 500 .. 63 400 Violent Felony Arrests o - 300 —Projected Number of Violent Felony Arrests z 200 100Y 9 3714x+476:87 R A; :1899 0 aNi (M 0) M o 0 0 0 00 0 M O Q7 O CD CD N N N O O e- N N Year Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 14 Chart I—9 Average Daily Population (APD)of Violent Offenders it 100.0 90.0 76.2 79.2 80.0 E 8-9-1 6 7 .7 70.0 60.0 =Average Daily Population: CL Violent Offenders 50.0 T,— < —Projected ADP of Violent 40.0 Offenders 30.0 y= 1.3223x+67.284 20.0 R'=0.1894 10.0 CD CN Im T (0 co 0 N (0 co CD m m 0 04 CN 04 C*4 N Year Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 15 C. PROFILES OF YOUTH IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM In evaluating program and system needs, it is crucial to have a clear and detailed picture of youth in the system. The following sections are updates of similar profiles conducted in 1992 and 1996. In the current profiles, additional detail regarding risk factors in the youths' lives is included. 1. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Boys Profile Methods A profile study was conducted on all of the boys in custody at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall on February 3, 1999. The purpose of this study was to review both current and historical criminal justice documentation on these youth in order to get a"snapshot" picture of the type of male offenders currently in custody at the Halt. Information for the profile was obtained from Probation files, and was collected by the Juvenile Hall staff. Results Demographics Of the 133 boys sampled in this study, the largest proportion were African American(46%). Thirty-two percent were "Other" ethnicities such as Pacific Islander and Asian American, and 20%were White. The average age of these youth was 16 years old, and 44% of them another language in addition to English. Almost half of these boys lived with a single parent prior to intake (48%). Only 25% lived in a two-parent home, and 17% had lived with other family such as a grandparent, aunt or uncle or older sibling prior to their stay in the Hall. School/Employment On average, the highest grade completed by boys in this sample was 9`h grade. With an average age of 16, it appears as a whole that these boys were slightly behind in grade level. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the majority of these boys had some sort of school problem. A few of the most prevalent problems were truancy (58%), frequent absenteeism (43%), and suspensions (62%). The majority of these boys were not employed prior to intake (55%). However 33% were employed part time, and 5% were employed full time. Current Status A very small percentage of the boys in this sample were committed to Juvenile Hall (2%). As an interesting side note, data collected on Hall releases in November 1998 illustrated a higher number of commitments to the Hall. This may indicate that there is considerable variability in the use of the Hall for commitments. The majority of boys in this study were pre-disposition (41%) or awaiting transfer to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation facility (38%). Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 16 The largest proportion of boys in this study were in custody for felony property offenses such as burglary and grand theft (25%). Twenty percent were in the Hall for felony persons offenses such as robbery and murder, and 11%were in custody for a violation of probation. Criminal History Overall, the boys in this sample had relatively few prior convictions. Thirteen percent had between two and five prior felony convictions, and 19% had between two and eight prior convictions for other types of offenses. Fifty seven percent had no prior felony convictions, and 43% had no prior other convictions. However, most of these boys (81%) had been in the Hall before. Thirty-one percent had one prior stay, and as many as 17010 had between seven and fifteen prior hall stays. Thirty-three percent of these youth had one or more prior commitment to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility and one forth had one or more prior out-of-home placements. Risk Factors In general, this sample of boys had a fairly large number of risk factors ranging from behavioral problems to drug abuse and household difficulties. More specifically, 44% had documented behavior problems with peers, and 31% had documented behavior problems with adults. More than half of these boys had alcohol use documented in their file, and 70% had documented use of marijuana. A somewhat smaller percentage of these boys had used harder drugs such as cocaine and crack (17% and 14% respectively). Despite the large percentage of drug use among these boys, only 16% were receiving substance abuse treatment at the time of this study. It should be noted here that drug use among this sample may have been undercounted. Data was collected from Probation tiles which may have contained information on drug use only when specific evidence or self-report was available. While almost 30% of this population had indications of some sort of emotional difficulty, only 7% had a diagnosed mental health condition and only 6% were receiving mental health treatment at the time of this study. Difficulties in the home environment were significant among this sample of boys. Thirty-six percent had either parents or siblings involved in a gang. Over 50% of the boys had parents who are or have been involved in the criminal justice system. Forty-one percent of these youth had parents abusing alcohol and/or drugs, and 32% had siblings with substance abuse problems. Parent unemployment was a common risk factor(45%) and 22%had domestic violence in the home. Physical and sexual abuse toward the youth was suspected for a relatively small percentage of these boys (5%). Child neglect was suspected for 6% of this population. Risk Factors: Further Analysis A recent profile of all girls on probation in Contra Costa County measured its population for this same set of risk factors. A few key differences in the results of these two studies are worth mentioning. It should be noted that the boys sample was only of boys in the Hall, as opposed to the full probation sample of girls. Overall, the girls population tended to have less of a problem Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 17 with drug abuse and physical aggression compared to the boys, and a much higher occurrence of emotional and mental health problems. More specifically, while only 5% of the boys had been suspected victims of physical or sexual abuse, 22% of the girls had suspected abuse documented in their files. Almost half(47%) of the girls population had been diagnosed with some sort of mental health condition compared to only 7% of the boys. Similarly, 46% of the girls sample had indications of emotional difficulty compared to only 29% of the boys sample. Boys, however, had a higher frequency of alcohol and marijuana use than the girls. Seventy percent of the boys had documented marijuana use compared to 51% of the girls, and 66% of the .boys used alcohol compared to 42% of the girls. Boys also had a much higher frequency of physical aggression than girls. Fifty-three percent of the boys had problems with physical aggression toward peers compared to only 29% of the girls population. Table .I— 10: Ethnicity RACE COUNT PERCENT White 26 19.5% African 62 47% American Latino 2 1.5% Other 43 32% TOTAL 133 100% Table I — 11: Abe AGE COIJIVTPERCENT,°,,z:: 10 1 .8% 11 1 .8% 12 2 1.5% 13 6 4.5% 14 19 14% 15 28 21% 16 31 23.5% 17 39 30% 18 5 3.8% TOTAL 132 100% 'Ntissing records: I Table I— 12: Language Spoken LANGUAGE COUNT PERCENT r x English and 59 44% other English Only 74 56% TOTAL 133 100% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan B Table I— 13: Highest Grade Completed GRADE COUNT PERCENTv' T `'SID` w LEVELti 1 .8% 6 2 1.6% 7 4 3% 8 14 11% 9 34 27% 10 52 41% II 13 10% 12 7 5.5% TOTAL 127 100% *Missing records: 6 Table I — 14: School Problems PROBLElv1 CD LWT PERCENT ;: }"' y General 118 89% School Problems Disruptive 50 38% Behavior Frequent 57 43% Absenteeism Behind in 46 35% Grade Level Truancy 77 58% Suspensions 82 62% Expulsions 58 44% Special 43 32% Education Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 19 Table I — 15: Employment at Time of Admission EMPLOYMENT COUNT _ PERCENT. Not Employed 68 55% Part Time 41 33% Full Time 7 6% Occasional, 8 7% seasonal work Missing 9 7% TOTAL 124 100% *Missing records: 9 Table I — 16: Current Charge CUR RENT CHARGE s, COUNT,PERCENT? r Felony persons' 27 20% Felony property 35 26% Felony drugs 12 9% Other felony 4 3% Misdemeanor persons 14 11% Misdemeanor property 3 2% Misdemeanor drugs 3 2% Other misdemeanor 2 2% VOP 14 11% Miscellaneous 19 14% TOTAL 133 100% Table I— 17: Current Justice Status CURRENT COUNT l r PERCENT, STATilS f x ��� n �ti 6 2 w Predisposition 53 42% Committed to 2 2% Hall Awaiting 49 38% OAYRF Awaiting 22 17% placement Awaiting CYA 2 2% Other 2 2% TOTAL 130 100% * Missing records: 3 Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 20 Table I — 18: Prior Felony Convictions a NUMBER COUNTPERCENT {j t i t .PRIORS , '` ,:.: ;, r. . :..: ' y :, < ; • �. ' '.:`�.r "t F�`��,�-y.`;�-���< 0 76 57 1 40 30 2 10 8 3 4 3 4 2 2 5 1 .8 TOTAL 133 100% Table I — 19: Prior Other Convictions NUMBER COUNT PERCENT 3 `...;' t .t 1 c 1 ✓r Y f _-.!T��. er a -_� F� i ,E �'tib�.]a�� ltd *;i�r��''}s, QF TTa-- x PRIORS , x Y 0 57 43% 1 50 38% 2 10 8% 3 7 5% 4 3 2% 5 2 2% 6 1 .8% 7 2 2% 8 1 .8% TOTAL 133 100% Table I — 20: Prior Hall Stays - NUMBER OF COUNT a PERCENT - "` yN 1. 0 25 19 1 41 31 2-5 44 33% 6-15 23 17% TOTAL 133 100% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 21 Table I—21: Prior Ranch Commitments NUMBER COUNT- PERCENT-..".."'. 0 90 68% 1 33 25% 2 6 5% 3 2 2% 5 2 2% TOTAL 133 100% Table I —22: Prior Out-of-Home Placements NUMBER COUNT PERCENT U 100 75% 1 26 20% 2 5 4% 3 1 .8% 6 1 .8% TOTAL 133 100% Table I —23: Living Situation Prior To Admission LOCATION COUNT PERCENT x Two-parent home 34 26% Sin;le mother 52 39% Single father 11 8% Grandparent 11 8% Aunt/uncle 4 3% Older sibling 6 5% Placement: Group Home 5 4% Placement: Residential Treatment 1 .8% Runaway 1 .8% Homeless 1 .8% Other 6 5% TOTAL 13 3 100% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 22 Table I —24: Risk Factors F.ISK FACTOR COLNT ''PERCENT r { r r ,�+• +� t Behavior Problems with Adults 41 31% Physical Aggression Toward Adults 26 20% Verbal Aggression Toward Adults 59 42% Behavior Problems with Peers 59 44% Physical Aggression Toward Peers 71 53% Verbal Aggression Toward Peers 66 50% Alcohol Use 85 66% Cocaine Use 21 17% Crack Use 17 14% Heroin Use 2 2% Inhalant Use 6 5% Marijuana Use 92 70% LSD Use 15 12% Downers Use 6 5% Ecstasy Use 11 9% . Crystal Meth Use . 11 9% Morphine Use 4 3% Speed Use 13 10% Currently Receiving Substance Abuse Treatment 21 16% Indications of Emotional Difficulty 38 29% Diagnosed Mental Health Condition 9 7% Currently Receiving Mental Health Treatment 8 6% Health Problems 25 19% Untreated Health Problems . 7 5% Parent Substance Abuse 54 41% Sibling Substance Abuse 42 32% Parent/Caregiver Unemployment 60 45% Family Risk of Losing Current Housing 12 9% Periods of Insufficient Food at Home 9 7% Insufficient Clothing For Children to Attend School 11 8% Domestic Violence 29 22% Sibling Gang Involvement 13 10% Parent Gang Involvement 7 5% Other Family Gang Involvement 28 21% Parents Involved in Criminal Justice System 66 50% Siblings Involved in Criminal Justice System 52 40% Siblings in Protective Custody/Out-of-Home 21 16% Placement Suspected Physical or Sexual Abuse 6 5% Suspected Child Neglect 8 6% Other Family Problems 1 .8% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 23 2. Contra Costa County Juvenile Girls Profile Introduction This profile of juvenile girls in Contra Costa County was conducted to better understand what types of girls are involved in the county's probation program. Methods The profile sample was taken from surveys distributed to probation officers and mental health workers in December 1998. The overall sample consisted of 298 girls on probation, including 49 girls in probation or mental health placement and/or residential treatment facilities. In order to see more clearly the background differences between girls in placement and girls in other home situations (e.g. family home, correctional facility, runaway), the tables were split to display statistics for the entire sample and then separately for the placement sub-sample. The information collected includes demographic data, current status in the justice system, current/prior home situation, school and employment status, risk factors (e.g. health, substance abuse, aggression), family risk factors, and resiliency/strength factors. Summary • A;e/Ethnicity/Lanbua;e Of the 298 girls examined, 97%were between the ages of 14 and 19 (Table 1-25). The average age was slightly over 16 (16.12); the median was also 16 years. Average age of the girls in placement was slightly lower, at 15.6. Of the total sample, 38.6% were white, 35.9% were African American, 13.1% Latino, 3.7% Asian American and 2% Pacific Islander. The sample of girls in placement had a higher proportion of whites (46.9%). African Americans. were 34.7% and Latinos were 9.2% of the placement population. There were no Asian Americans in placement, and Pacific Islanders were 2%. Of the overall sample, about 10% spoke English and another language, about 85% spoke English only, and one percent spoke limited or no English. • Current Justice Status As expected, 92% of the girls sampled were on probation (Table I-26); 2.3% were currently in a juvenile correctional facility, and the remaining girls were not currently involved in the justice system. The girls not on probation were in mental health placements that we chose to include in our study of at-risk girls. The most common primary offense was a misdemeanor property offense (e.g. petty theft and vandalism). These accounted for 23% of the girls' offenses. The next most common offenses were misdemeanor persons offenses (14.1%) and felony property offenses (12.8%). Following were other misdemeanors (9.1%) and felony drug charges (8.1%). The distribution of offenses was statistically the same for the group of girls in placement as the total group. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 24 • Home Situation The statistics in Table I-27 summarize the girls' current place of residence. "Home Setting Upon Return" was the only section that looked at the future setting in which the child would be placed after treatment or incarceration. About 77% of the surveys indicated that the girl was already living in her permanent place of residence, thus she would not"return" to another home. About 23% of the girls were currently living in a two-parent home. Thirty percent lived with a single mother, four percent lived with their father only, and two percent were under Joint custody by both parents. Eight percent lived with another family member (not a parent). Two percent were in a juvenile correctional facility. As mentioned above, 16% were in placement or a residential treatment facility. Nearly eight percent were runaways and 0.7% were homeless. It was not clear from the surveys where they were seeking shelter, or if they were sleeping on the streets. Of the total sample, 42.6% had been living at the current home setting for over two years which correlates with the fact that most were living with their parents. About 11% had been in their current home for 1-2 years, 10% for 6-12 months, and 26.5% for less than 6 months. Girls in placement had been at their current home setting (i.e. treatment or group home) for a much shorter time. No girls in placement had been at their current home for more than 2 years. Fifty-three percent had been in the current placement for less than six months. Thirty percent had been there for 6-12 months and another 16.3% for 1-2 years. Over 99% of the girls lived with one or more adults. About 95% lived with other children as well. Thirty-one girls (10.4%) were teen parents, and 20 (6.7%) were pregnant at the time of the survey. Looking at the home setting to which the girls would theoretically return after treatment or custody, the girls in placement had the most telling figures. Almost 43% would return to a single mother's home. The next highest percent was "unknown" (16.3%). For these girls in placement, that might signify an uncertainty as to where they can safely go after treatment. Still, 12.2% would return to a two-parent home, and 14.3% would return to another family member, not the parent. • School lssues/Employment There was not a huge statistical difference between the total sample and the girls in placement regarding current school. Approximately one third were attending regular school, one third were attending a continuation or alternative school, ten percent were in an independent study program, and ten percent had dropped out completely (of those, no drop- outs were girls in placement). Overall, most of the girls had school problems of some sort. Ninety percent of girls in placement had histories of school problems, including the following: disruptive behavior (38.8%), frequent absenteeism (51%), behind in grade level (63.3%), truancy (57.1%) and suspensions (36.7%). Almost 33% needed special education programs. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 25 In the larger sample, high levels of school problems were also recorded: disruptive behavior (23.5%), frequent absenteeism (40.3%), behind in grade level (34.6%), truancy (38.9%), suspensions (19.8%) and expulsions (1.3%). Over 14% needed special education programs. Only 6.1% had any current disciplinary action(e.g. suspension) in both the total and placement samples. The girls in placement tended to have less work experience than the overall group. About six percent of girls in placement had jobs and 10% had had a job prior to the study. Of the total sample, 17.1% currently held a job while 20.4% had previously had a job. • Risk Factors Not surprisingly, the girls in the sample exhibited very high numbers of the classic risk factors. Girls in placement had even higher rates of most of the listed risk factors. For example, 96% of girls in placement had a diagnosed mental health condition, and 90%were receiving mental health treatment. It is not coincidence that these rates are so high, because it is one reason the girls were put into group homes and treatment facilities. Of the overall sample, 17.4% were diagnosed with a mental health condition and 20.8% were in mental health treatment. It is possible that more girls were being "treated" than were diagnosed because counseling, for example, is standard treatment for preventing further delinquencies of high-risk girls. Girls in placement had very high numbers for behavior problems with adults (79.6%), verbal aggression against adults (79.6%) and verbal aggression against peers (81.6%). The rates for the whole group were 57.4%, 50.0% and 43.0% respectively. These behavior problems are, of course, related to the reasons for placement, and the higher rates for girls in placement may reflect better information about those girls as compared to girls on general probation supervision Fourteen percent of the girls in placement were involved with gangs, while 8.1% of the total sample were involved with gangs. Drug and alcohol use was markedly higher in the group of girls in placement in almost every category. This could, however, be the result of more complete data gathering from the live- in treatment facilities where the girls are known more intimately by their case workers. Instances of drug use are usually under-counted since the numbers rely on the youth's willingness to.admit usage. Generally, case workers who spend more time with the individual will have more accurate statistics. • Family Risk Factors Family Risk Factors profiles the background of the parents and siblings of an individual. They include the family's ability to provide food and clothing, as well as family involvement with gangs, the criminal justice system, family substance abuse and suspected child abuse. As in Table I-29 (Risk Factors), the figures for girls in placement were significantly higher than the overall sample. This, again, may reflect both the reasons for the placement and the case workers' more intimate relationship with the placed girls. Contra Costa County local Action Plan 26 About 50% of girls in placement were exposed to parental substance abuse, parent unemployment, domestic violence and suspected physical or sexual abuse. The corresponding figures for the entire sample were 31.5%, 30.9%, 26.8% and 21.8%. Girls in placement suffered twice the risk of losing the family home and three times the chance of periods of insufficient food compared to the total sample. However, they had half the risk of insufficient clothing compared to the total sample. About a third of the girls had a parent in the criminal justice system. • Resiliency/Stren;th Factors Surveys indicated that most of the girls had a number of factors in their favor. Ninety percent of girls in placement and 80% of all the girls had parent or caregiver support. Two thirds of all girls reported a stable home environment. In most categories, girls in placement had a higher proportiun of strengths than the overall sample. These higher rates may be attributed to the supportive nature of the placements themselves, where girls have exposure to supportive adults and peers, and access to organized activities. Of girls in placement, 94% had supportive adult relationships, 57% had positive peer support, 88% were working toward future goals, 84% had character strengths and 63% had strong interests or skills such as fine arts. For the overall sample, 71.5% had supportive adult relationships, 37.9% had positive peer support, 57.4% were working toward future goals, 59% had character strengths and 41% had strong interests or skills. In other areas, girls in placement had twice the rate of certain resiliency factors compared with the total sample. Girls in placement participated more in positive peer activities (51%), general organized activities (26.5%) and ethnic/cultural activities (37%). Of the total sample, only 25% participated in positive peer activities, 11%participated in general organized activities and 19% in ethnic/cultural activities. Overall, about six percent took part in organized sports activities. Discussion The girls in this profile were chosen so as to characterize the types of girls on probation, and as expected, the majority represent classic high-risk cases. They had exceptionally high rates of parent substance abuse, parent unemployment, single parent families, domestic violence, parents in the criminal justice system and suspected child abuse, especially among the girls in placement. However, it is notable that the girls in placement had higher levels of strength and resiliency factors. This seems to indicate that the placements are providing safe and supportive environments for girls with unstable families and/or mental health conditions. The data for the girls in placement may be slightly more accurate due to the closer proximity of the girls to counselors and case workers. Girls in placement may be admitting to more risk factors and may feel safer discussing their personal histories. Drug use is one factor that is often undercounted in surveys like this. Physical and sexual abuse is almost always underrepresented for reasons of embarrassment, self-blame and wanting to protect the abuser. Given the probability that these numbers are on the low side, these girls most certainly fit the profile of Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 27 children who need counseling, family intervention, child protection, drug treatment, mentoring and health/mentat health treatment. Of girls getting placement, there are several demographic factors worth mentioning. First, whites are slightly over-represented and Asian Americans are underrepresented in placement facilities when compared to the overall probation population. Latinos are also slightly underrepresented. It would be worth investigating the reasons for this discrepancy in ethnic representation. Also, the average age of girls in placement was lower than in the total sample. This may be a positive sign that intervention is happening at an early age, perhaps reducing the number of future encounters with law enforcement. TABLE I - 25: Age, Ethnicity and Language Spoken ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT AGE_ ; COUNT; PERCENT 0UNTk PERCENT. 11-13 8 2.6% 2 4.1% 14-16 161 54.0% 34 69.4% 17-19 j 128 43.00/6 13 26.5% Unknown 1 _ .40o j 0 0% Total ! 298 100% 49 1000/0 ETPMCITY White 115 38.6% 1 23 46.9% African American 107 35.9% 17 34.7% Latino 39 13.1% 1 4 8.2% Asian American 11 3.7% 0 0% Pacific Islander 6 2.0% 1 2.0% Other 10 3.4% 1 2.0% Unknown 10 _ 3.4% j 3 6.1% Total ----- X98 f 0-0 6,4011 49 — 1006/. ,LAN GUAGE.SPOKEN r£ English and another 35 11.7% j 5 10.2% English only 252 84.6% 1 44 89.8% Limited or no English 3 1.0% 0 0% Unknown i 8 2.7% j 0 0% Total 298! 100% ! 49 100% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 28 TABLE I - 26: Current Justice Status ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT CURRENT NS.T[CE STATUS COUNT AERCENT COUNT,, kPERCENTr No prior involvement with justice system j 5 1.7% 3 6.1% Not currently involved i 2 0.7% j 2 4.1% On probation 274 91.9% 40 81.6% Other ! 17 6.3% 4 8.2% CURRENTTOF.FENS.E Felony Persons 15 5.0% i 3 6.1% Felony Property i 38 12.8% 6 12.2% Felony Drugs 24 8.1% I 5 10.2% Other Felony 3 1.0% i 1 2.0% Misdemeanor Persons 42 14.1% 6 12.2% Misdemeanor Property 69 23.2% � 11 22.4% Misdemeanor Drugs 17 5.7% 1 2.0% Other Misdemeanor I 27 9.1% I 4 8.2% Violation of Probation 19 6.4% l 2.0% Misceilaneous 16 5.4% I 2.0% Note:Missing data not included in above table. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 29 TABLE I - 27: Home Situation ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT t'GIRLS'.CURRENT EIOME SETTNG'' " COUNT �,PERGENT"1,4r,..;, COUNTPERCENT'� .. Two-Parent Home 68 22.8% 0 0% Single Mother 87 29.2% ` 0 0% Single Father 12 4.0% I 0 0% Joint Custody j 6 2.0% 0 0% Grandparent or Aunt 22 7.4% 0 0% Older Brother or Sister 3 1.0% 0 0% Placement in Group Home 22 7.4% 22 44.9% Residential Treatment Facility ! 27 9.1% 27 55.1% Juvenile Correctional Facility 7 2.3% 0 0% Runaway 23 7.7% 0 0% Homeless 2 0.7% ; 0 0% Other I 12 4.0% i 0 0% TIME"AT CURRENT.,-. ; f _ ` = r..' Less than 6 months j 79 26.5% ' 26 53.1% 6-12 months 31 10.4% I 15 30.6% 1-2 years I 34 11.4% 8 16.3% Over 2 years 127 42.6% i 0 0% ;LANGUAGEOF CAREGIVER ;, s _ ;., .t �: ,�Pr _ English and another 1 46 15.4% 1 7 14.3% English only 215 72.1% ; 38 77.6% Limited or no English ! 7 2.3%,i 0 0% 0 ! 1 0.3% 0 0% 1 128 43.0% 23 46.9% 2 106 39.0% 15 30.6% 3 or More j 37 12.4% I 3 6.1% 0 16 5.4% 1 2.0% 1 100 33.6% I 13 26.5% 2 73 24.5% 1 11 22.4% 3 or More 82 27.4% 16 32.5% HOMESETTING,IJP.ON'RETURN� Two-Parent Home 11 3.7% ' 6 12.2% Single Mother 32 10.7% I 21 42.9% Single Father 7 2.3% , 5 10.2% Joint Custody 3 I.0% 1 2 4.1% Grandparent or Aunt/Uncle 14 4.6% 7 14.3% Older Brother or Sister 1 0.3% 1 0 0% Unknown or Not Applicable" 230 77.2% I 8 16.3% TEEN:'FARENT 31 10.4% ; 6 12.2% 20 6.7% 1 2.0% Note: Missing data not included in above table. **This high number comes from the fact that most of the girls are already in their permanent family home thus will not be returning to another abode. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 30 TABLE I -28: SchooU Employment ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT CURRENT•:SCHOOL ,; ; GQUNTf ;PERCENT �COUNT ;� PERGEN�T Attending Regular School 82 .27.5% 11 22.4% Attending Court School 12 4.0% 2 4.1% Attending Community School 13 4.4% 9 18.4% Attending Continuation/Alternative Sch. 81 27.2% 16 32.7% Independent Study Program 31 10.4% 1 2.0% Graduated 10 3.4% 0 0% GED completion 2 0.7% 0 0% Dropped out 32 10.7% 0 0% Other 32 10.7% : 10 20.4% H1ST:ORY OF_SCHOOL PROBLEMS;'. =i 201 67.4% j 44 89.8% History of Disruptive Behavior i 70 23.5% I 19 38.8% Frequent Absenteeism 120 40.3% 25 51% Behind in Grade Level I 103 34.6% ' 31 63.3% History of Truancy 116 38.9% 23 57.1% History of Suspensions 59 19.8% 18 36.7% History of Expulsions 4 1.3% , 0 0% Special Education 43 14.4% I 16 32.0% CURRENT'DISCIPLINARY:ACTION r '# ;,. ' yam. r .' �, r� -,. by 3-•.'- � � :-�,y Suspended ! 20 6.7% j 3 6.1% Expelled I 2 0.7% ; 0 0% CURRENT EMPLOY-NIETaT:; -, ,v ~< ` , 51 17.1% i .PREQR.ENIRLOYMENT :._ 61 20.4% 5 10.2% Note: Missing data not included in above table. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 31 TABLE I -29: Risk Factors ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT RISK FACTORS i COUNTPERCENT COUNT :�PERCEI�iT� Behavior Problems with adults 171 57.4% �x 39 79.6% Physical Aggression against adults 53 17.8% I 9 18.4% Verbal Aggression against adults 149 50.0% I 39 79.6% Behavior Problems with peers 133 44.6% 29 59.2% Physical Agaression against peers 86 28.9% 18 36.7% Verbal Agaression against peers 128 43.0% 40 81.6% Indications of current substance abuse 114 38.3% 25 51.0% Alcohol use 126 42.3% 32 65.3% Crack use 26 8.7% 15 30.6% Cocaine use I 30 10.1% 16 32.7% Crystal meth use I 23 7.7% 9 18.4% Heroin use 2 0.7% 2 4.1% Inhalant use I l 0.3% 1 2.0% Marijuana use I 151 50.7% 33 67.3% LSD use i 6 2.0% i 3 6.1% Downers use 2 0.7% i 2 4.1% Ecstasy use 0 0% 0 0% Morphine use 1 0.3% ; 0 0% Speed use 33 11.1% 17 34,7% Receiving substance abuse treatment 78 26.2% i 31 63.3% Indications of current gang involvement 24 8.1% I 7 14.3% Indications of emotional difficulties 137 46.0% i 40 81.6% Diagnosed mental health condition 1 52 17.4% 47 95.9% Receiving mental health treatment 62 20.8% I 44 89.8% Health problem 1 21 7.0% i 6 12.2% Untreated health problem f 4 1.3% 0 0% Note: Missing data not included in above table. TABLE I -30: Family Risk Factors ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT 1ANULY RISK FACTORS Parent substance abuse 1 COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT;: 94 3 l.5% 26 53.1 Sibling substance abuse 25 8.4% 5 10.2% Parent/Caregiver unemployment 92 30.9% 26 53.1% Family risk of losing housing 34 11.4% 11 22.4% Periods of insufficient food at home 23 7.7% 11 22.4% Insufficient clothing for children 17 5.7% 8 16.3% Domestic violence 80 26.8% 22 44.9% Parent gang involvement i 1 0.3% I 0 0%. Sibling gang involvement 12 4.0% 4 8.2% Other family gang involvement 6 2.05% 1 2.0% Parent in Criminal Justice System I 84 28.2% 15 30.6% Siblings in Criminal Justice System 66 22.1% 8 16.3% Siblings in protective custody or I 20 6.7% 5 10.2% placement i Suspected physical or sexual abuse f 65 21.8% 24 49.0% Suspected child neglect 39 13.1% i 16 32.7% Other family problems 72 24.2% 16 32.7% Note: Missing data not included in above table. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 32 TABLE I - 31: Resiliency/Strength Factors ALL GIRLS GIRLS IN PLACEMENT RESILENCY/STRENGTH FACTORS "`COUNT "*'PERCENT COUNT 4 PERCENT _: =' .�._�K. .... Parent/Caregiver Support 239 80.2% 44 89.8% Stable Home Environment 203 68.1% 33 67.3% Positive Peer Support 113 37.9% 28 57.1% Supportive Adult Relationships 213 71.5% I 46 93.9% Scholastic Achievement 126 42.3% i 25 51.0% Involved in Positive Peer.Activities 75 25.2% I 25 51.0% Sports Team Member 16 5.4% 3 6.1% Participates in Organized Activities 37 12.4% 13 26.5% Participates in Religious Activities 52 17.4% 8 16.3% Participates in Ethnic/Cultural Activities 56 18.8% 18 36.7% Other Activities 33 11.1% 1 16 32.7% Working toward Future Goals 171 57.4% 43 87.8% Character Strengths ! 174 58.4% II� 41 83.7% Strong Interest and/or Skills 121 40.6% 1 31 63.3% Other Strengths j 75 25.2% 23 46.90/c Note: Missing data not included in above table. D. INTAKE/RELEASE STUDY Introduction In order to develop a picture of the number and types of youth brought into Juvenile Hall, an intake and release study was conducted for youth released from the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. Data were collected on youth released over a one-month period(November 1998). The purpose of this study was to examine what types of offenders were brought to the Hall and how long each type of offender remained in custody. Using the different offense categories represented in the sample,this data was then used to measure what types of offenders utilized the majority of care days in the Hall. The profile of youth in the intake/release study is typically different from the snapshot profile of the youth in custody. The intake/release profile has a fuller picture of the youth brought to custody whether their stay is brief or extended, whereas the snapshot profile tends to emphasize the youth that remain in custody for longer periods of time. Profile Summary Of the 186 youths released from the Hall in this one-month period, 79% were males and 21% were-females. Ninety percent were between the ages of 14 and 17. Both males and females had an average age of 15 at the date of intake. The median age was also 15. African Americans made up 42.5% of the releases; whites were 30.6%; Latinos were 15.1%; and Asian Americans were 9.7%. Fifty-seven percent of the youth were in grades nine and ten. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 33 By region, 44% of the youth came from West county (e.g. Pinole, Richmond, El Sobrante, etc.). Thirty-five percent came from East county (e.g. Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, etc.). Central and South county combined made up 17% of the total releases. Youth in this sample stayed in custody for an average of 26 days. Males stayed in custody for an average of 28 days and females for an average of 19 days. Fifty percent of youth in custody spent less than 10 days at the Hall. However, 27.4% spent more than a month in custody, and 14% spent more than 60 days at the Hall. Results Tables I-32 through I-39 summarize the key findings of this study. Main points include the following: Offense Category/Length of Stay. Roughly a third of youth in this sample were brought into custody on a court commitment(31.7%). However, the mean length of stay for these youth was . well below average, at only 12 days. Almost twelve percent were brought into custody for a violation of probation. Probation violators accounted for over 30% of the total care days. In twenty percent of cases, the reason for admission was listed as `.`warrant", utilizing 19% of the total care days. Of the youth brought in on new charges, the largest numbers were for felony persons offenses (e.g. assault and rape). These youth stayed an average of 51.5 days—well above the overall average —occupying the largest amount of Hall space (20.3%). Previous Detentions. Although two thirds of the youth were already wards, one third of the sampled youth had no previous detentions. Of those with prior records, a third had one or two previous detentions. Eighteen percent had three or four previous detentions, and almost 15% had five or more detentions. Release Modality. Some 29%of the sampled youth were released under Home Supervision, the most common release modality. Another 21% were released to a family member, without special supervision, and 17.9% were placed on Juvenile Electronic Monitoring(JEM). It is noteworthy that the youth released to Home Supervision and JEM spent a number of days in custody well below the average length of stay. It is also noteworthy that about 15% of the youth were in the Hall pending transfer to OAYRF (the"Ranch"), and these youth stayed in the Hall for an average of over 58 days. Because of the long length of stay, these used up fully a third of Hall space. Four individuals were transferred to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Their average stay at the Hall was over 66 days, over twice the average length of stay. A single escaped youth had spent 77 days in custody before getting out. Some 3.2% of the youth were transferred to an out- of-county agency. Contra Costa County Locat Action Plan 34 Discussion Three population groups stand out in this analysis. The data suggest that youth in custody awaiting placement, youth in custody pending transfer to OAYRF and youth on court commitments use nearly 60% of bed capacity at the Hall. The county's increasing use of Home Supervision and JEM has alleviated the pressure for space for pre-disposition cases. Space for pre-disposition detection is clearly limited because of the use of the Hall for adjudicated youth and youth pending transfer. These figures suggest issues for further discussion, for example, why placements are so delayed and whether transfers to CYA could be expedited. With the opening of the new unit at OAYRF, the number of youth awaiting transfer to the ranch will presumably decline. A final note on the types of offenders held: it appears from this data that the Hall is now used primarily for serious and/or chronic offenders. While lesser offenders may cycle through the Hall for brief periods, those who remain in the facility tend to be charged with felonies and/or have prior probation and Juvenile Hall involvement. Table I -32: Average Length of Stay and Total Care Days, by Offense Category Offense Category Count Average length of Total Care days (#, %) Stay (days) (4, %) Felony Persons 19 (10.2%) 51.5 979 (20.3%) Felony Property 7 (3.8%) 66.1 463 (9.6%) Felony Drugs 2 (1.1%) 118.0 236 (4.9%) Other Felony 4 (2.2%) 18.3 73 (1.5%) Misdemeanor Persons 9 (4.8%) 9.6 86 (1.8%) Misdemeanor Property 1 (0.5%) 21.0 21 (0.4%) Other Misdemeanor 5 (2.7%) 12.3 49 (1.0%) Violation of Probation 22 (11.8%) 31.4 690 (14.3%) Warrant 3 7 (19.9%) 24.9 922 (19.1%) Miscellaneous 21 (11.3%) 28.6 601 (12.5%) Court commitment 59 (31.7%) 12.0 696 (14.5%) TOTAL 186 26.2 4816 i Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 33 By region, 44% of the youth came from West county (e.g. Pinole, Richmond, El Sobrante, etc.). Thirty-five percent came from East county (e.g. ,Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, etc.). Central and South county combined made up 17% of the total releases. Youth in this sample stayed in custody for an average of 26 days. Mates stayed in custody for an average of 28 days and females for an average of 19 days. Fifty percent of youth in custody spent less than 10 days at the Hall. However; 27.4% spent more than a month in custody, and 14% spent more than 60 days at the Hall. Results Tables I-32 through I-39 summarize the key findings of this study. Main points include the following: Offense Category/Length of Stay. Roughly a third of youth in this sample were brought into custody on a court commitment (31.7%). However, the mean length of stay for these youth was well below average, at only 12 days. Almost twelve percent were brought into custody for a violation of probation. Probation violators accounted for over 30% of the total care days. In twenty percent of cases, the reason for admission was listed as "warrant", utilizing 19% of the total care days. Of the youth brought in on new charges, the largest numbers were for felony persons offenses (e.g. assault and rape). These youth stayed an average of 51.5 days—well above the overall average—occupying the largest amount of Hall space (20.3%). Previous Detentions. Although two thirds of the youth were already wards, one third of the sampled youth had no previous detentions. Of those with prior records, a third had one or two previous detentions. Eighteen percent had three or four previous detentions, and almost 15% had five or more detentions. Release Modality. Some 29% of the sampled youth were released under Home Supervision, the most common release modality. Another 21%were released to a family member, without special supervision, and 17.9% were placed on Juvenile Electronic Monitoring (JEM). It is noteworthy that the youth released to Home Supervision and JEM spent a number of days in custody well below the average length of stay. It is also noteworthy that about 15% of the youth were in the Hall pending transfer to OAYRF (the "Ranch"), and these youth stayed in the Hall for an average of over 58 days. Because of the long length of stay, these used up fully a third of Hall space. Four individuals were transferred to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Their average stay at the Hall was over 66 days, over twice the average length of stay. A single escaped youth had spent 77 days in custody before getting out. Some 3.2% of the youth were transferred to an out- of-county agency. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 34 Discussion Three population groups stand out in this analysis. The data suggest that youth in custody awaiting placement, youth in custody pending transfer to OAYRF and youth on court commitments use nearly 60%of bed capacity at the Hall. The county's increasing use of Home Supervision and J.EM has alleviated the pressure for space for pre-disposition cases. Space for pre-disposition detection is clearly limited because of the use of the Hall for adjudicated youth and youth pending transfer. These figures suggest issues for further discussion, for example, why placements are so delayed and whether transfers to CYA could be expedited. With the opening of the new unit at OAYRF, the number of youth awaiting transfer to the ranch will presumably decline. A final note on the types of offenders held: it appears from this data that the Hall is now used primarily for.serious and/or chronic offenders. While lesser offenders may cycle through the Hall for brief periods, those who remain in the facility tend to be charged with felonies and/or have prior probation and Juvenile Hall involvement. Table I -32: Average Length of Stay and Total Care Days, by Offense Category Offense Category Count Average length of Total Care days (41 %) Stay (days) (4, %) Felony Persons 19 (10.2%) 51.5 979 (20.3%) Felony Property 7 (3.8%) 66.1 463 (9.6%) Felony Drugs 2 (1.1%) 118.0 236 (4.9%) Other Felony 4 (2.2%) 18.3 73 (1.5%) Misdemeanor Persons 9 (4.8%) 9.6 86 (1.8%) Misdemeanor Property 1 (0.5%) 21.0 21 (0.4%) Other Misdemeanor 5 (2.7%) 12.3 49 (1.0%) Violation of Probation 22 (11.8%) 31.4 690 (14.3%) Warrant 37 (19.9%) 24.9 922 (19.1%) Miscellaneous 21 (11.3%) 28.6 601 (12.5%) Court commitment 59 (31.7%) 12.0 696 (14.5%) TOTAL 186 26.2 4816 Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 35 Table I—33: Youth in Custody, by Region Region Count Percent West county 82 (44.1%) East county 65 (34.9%) Central county 29 (15.6%) South county 3 (1.6%) Out-of-county 7 (3.8%) TOTAL 186 100% Table I -34: Age Distribution Age Count Percent Less than 10 years old 0 0% 10-12 3 1.6% 13-15 96 51.6% 16-18 87 46.8% TOTAL 186 100% Table I - 35: Grade Grade Count Percent 6 1 0.5% 7 7 3.8% 8 14 7.5% 9 50 26.9% 10 56 30.1% 11 41 22.0% 12 14 7.5% Unknown 3 1.6% TOTAL 186 100% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 36 Table I - 36: Ethnicity Ethnicity Count Percent White 57 30.6% African American 79 42.5% Asian American 18 9.7% Latino 28 15.1% Other 3 1.6% Unknown 1 0.5% TOTAL 186 100% Table I -37: Previous Detentions Number of Detentions Number of youths Percent 0 64 34.4% 1-2 62 33.3% 3-4 33 17.7% 5-7 19 10.2% More than 7 8 4.3% TOTAL 186 100% Table I- 38: Release Modality Release Modality Count Average Length Total Care Days (4, %) of Stay (days) (41 %) Home 40 (21.5%) 25.3 1011 (21.0%) JEM 27 (14.5%) 11.9 308 (6.4%) Placement 25 (13.6%) 34.5 863 (17.9°/x) Home Supervision 55 (29.6%) 10.5 566 (11.8%) Out-of-county 6 (3.2%) 15.8 95 (2.0%) OAYRF 28 (15.1%) 58.3 1631 (33.9%) CYA 4 (2.2%) 66.3 265 (5.5%) Escape 1 (0.5%) 77.0 77 (1.6%) TOTAL 186 100% 26:2 4816 Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 37 Table I -39: Status Status Count Percent Ward 116 62.4% Informal 4 2.2% Non-ward 7 3.8% Pending 59 31.7% TOTAL 186 100% Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 33 E. CURRENT CONTINUUM OF RESPONSES TO JUVENILE CRIME 1. Continuum of Care The following materials summarize the current continuum of care and describe in more detail a sample of the many programs and resources available in 2001. As these materials demonstrate, Contra Costa County has developed an extensive array of programs and interventions throughout its juvenile justice continuum. In the past three years alone,the County has implemented several new projects to enhance this continuum, most notably the Edgar Transition Center, a day reporting program for boys leaving the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF); the Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center and two Challenge II programs that focus specifically on services for girls. • The day reporting program is a step-down program, allowing early release to community supervision for boys in the county's commitment facility. Opened in May 2000, it includes a full education program through the County Office of Education, vocational training and development and community service. • The Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center opened in December 1999. The County renovated a facility adjacent to the Juvenile Hall and Probation, Mental Health, and the County Office of Education formulated the Center's program. The Center serves as a residential placement for 20 girls who have failed other placements and/or who have serious mental health conditions that require intensive treatment and close supervision. • In 1999, the County received a Challenge II grant to place specific focus on programs for girls. The first, the Circle of Care Day Treatment Program, is an interisive field supervision program operating in each of the three regions of the County for girls on probation or at high risk of delinquency and placement. The second effort is the Living Skills Foster Care Program that provides transitional housing for older girls preparing for independent living or emancipation. 2. Out-of-Home Placements Over the past seven years, Contra Costa Probation has averaged slightly over 100 youth in placement. As the profile of girls on probation in the preceding section shows, the girls in placement manifest particularly high levels of risk factors, making removal from placement difficult in many cases. Probation has made concerted efforts to minimize the number of minors in placement,through Placement Diversion, the Summit Center and now the Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center. The Summit Center is a residential program for boys with placement orders. Youth placed in Summit are serious offenders or chronic placement failures with serious mental and emotional disorders, requiring intensive services and a secure environment. Probation, Mental Health, and the County Office of Education jointly operate the Summit Center. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 39 The Summit Center is partially funded by AB 3015 System of Care moneys. Although it is technically a placement itself, the Summit Center seeks to reduce placements by providing more intensive interventions that can shorten the length of time in out-of-home settings. The Chris Adams Girls Treatment Center includes a similar goal and strategy for reducing placements for girls. Contra Costa County has a long history of seeking alternatives to placements to keep families intact. The County was one of the first in the country, for example, to implement Family Preservation services. Probation also fields a Placement Diversion program, which, like Family Preservation, includes intensive work with families. 3. Continuum of Services The following displays describe the rich array of programs, interventions and services which constitute Contra Costa County's continuum of services from prevention through intervention, suppression, custody and aftercare. The variety of programs, collaboratives and approaches combine to create a deep and diverse response to delinquency prevention, family empowerment and youth resiliency enhancement. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 40 Current Services and Programs3 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY PREVENTION! J. `` t .,INTERVENTION p �, y R � 7uyz �il Lao Family: Youth Activities Violence and Richmond High Southeast Asian 200 youth/yr United Way Funded for 10- truancy School, youth from 41h 12 years. prevention Kennedy, grade to High Manzanita, School Portola and Helm Schools Teen Pregnancy Parenting and 50 youth,20-25 County Community Program Intervention San Pablo birth control parents Superintendent Challenge education of Schools, Grant. Health Department, East Bay Center for the Performing Arts, Familias Unidas, Early Childhood Mental Health Community Diversion Countywide First time minor Average of 100 Probation and 1,045 clients in Service Program offenders per day in Juvenile Court weekend work in Early referred volunteer 1997,656 Intervention informally. independent clients in Court ordered community work volunteer moderate to and 75 per day on independent serious weekend work work program in offenders 1997. $300,000/year. Family Diversion Diversion Countywide School 15 families per Superior Court I Curriculum problems, month 12 hr Probation defined 1$50- informal sessions I one $75 per family. probation,first time a week referrals and court wards. 3 Italicized entries denote programs that are still in planning or pending funding. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 41 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Adolescent Prevention Countywide Siblings of 40 youth East Bay Program in the Family Life: pregnant and Perinatal third year. Sibling Program parenting teens Serves youth between ages of 11-17 years old Business Prevention Countywide Children,youth Variable Board of Private non Leaders and families Supervisors, profit community Alliance/ CAO,Business foundation to Future Corps Leaders develop financial Foundation Alliance,East and volunteer Bay Community support to Foundation further children and youth programs including job internships and mentoring. Family/School/ Prevention Focus on At-risk children Variable WCCUSD/Youth SafeFulures Community elementary and families for Service Bureau funding at Partnerships schoolshnitiaily mentoring,day $350,0001year. in West County centers,child CEOs/City of at Lincoln, care,parent Richmond Social Worker Nystrom, support in-home provides staff Coronado services support and mental health back up. Youth Prevention Countywide Youth 3 youth reps from Board of Started in 1995 Commission Commissioners each district in Supervisors with$5,000 in must be 13-18 County(15)and 5 (Mark private ears old at-large DeSaulnier) donations. Communities in Prevention Helms Middle At-risk(for Once a month WCCUSD Schools Conflict and Richmond violence, workshops at two Communities in Resolution High Schools substance schools Schools abuse, truancy, child abuse) 100 cases students and families for counseling and conflict mediation services Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 42 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY School to Prevention Countywide A program for COE A$10,500 grant Career students who received from Partnership are on the East Bay Grant probation,are School—To— habitually truant, Career have been Partnership. expelled from other schools or have been referred by the District SARB. Urban Action Prevention City of Youth at high 40 boys Richmond Fire Corps I Richmond risk of gang Dept.Black Richmond Youth involvement, 12 Professional Academy —16 years old Firefighters for mentoring and community service employment, 10 months 14 hours each Saturday Youth Council Prevention East Bay Administer 15 youth 13—20 East Bay Public Corridor Youth Mini- years old Safety Corridor Grant Program Partnership for youth crime. and violence prevention activities Youth Together Prevention West Contra Mentoring to 30 mentees and Helms Middle Funded by the Costa County youth at Helms 10 youth School and US Department Middle School; organizers Richmond High of Education. Community School organizing involving 10 youth organizers, ages 15 to 18, focusing on interracial Violence prevention. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 43 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Project SEED Prevention Richmond Elementary. 10 youth Harry Ells $50,000 grant school children school funded by who have United Way. suffered a loss or who themselves have a terminal illness Sheriffs Dept. Prevention Countywide Any youth 14— 7 youth Sheriffs Dept. East Bay Public Youth Academy 18 to strengthen Safety Corridor relationship Partnership between peace - funded. officers and youth. Systemic and Prevention West County Pre sexually and 2,000 youth for West County State Thoughtful sexually active training in Community Department of Organization of adolescents, responsibility and Collaborative Health Services Prevention and pregnant and referral services grant. Parenting parenting teens, for jobs and County Office of Programs parents and education Education (S.T.O.P.) families,adults at risk for unwed parenthood, absentee fatherhood Infant/Parent Prevention and Richmond and Home-based 29 clients Family Center in Funded by Program early Pittsburgh counseling for Richmond, also MediCal and intervention mothers in Pittsburgh County Mental (including teen Health. mothers)of high-risk infants from birth to 4 years. JJDP Prevention and West Contra Similar to Southeast Asian Helms Middle Funded by the early Costa County, Generations Youth(not strictly School and OCJP. intervention mostly program Mien,unlike Richmond High Richmond,north Generations), School/ Richmond and ages 12—18 International San Pablo Institute Early Childhood Prevention and Richmond Provides 26 youth Family Center, Funded by Assessment and Intervention assessment and Richmond,CA MediCal and Treatment Team'l play therapy for County Mental children ages 1 Health(EPSOT). —6 and counseling for teen mothers Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 44 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Reclaiming Our Prevention and West Contra Comprehensive Goal: 200 per WCCUSD, Children and intervention Costa Unified case year Probation, Families School Distinct management; Police truant youth on Community- probation and based agencies court wards with substance abuse,gang, family problems 115 years old or younger. Healthy Start Prevention, Bay Point(4 At-risk families Variable California intervention, schools), and youth Foundations, aftercare Parkside providing case State School, management, Department of OAYRF health services, Education, local School and afterschool school districts West County, programs, and County Monument referrals agencies Corridor, Antioch (Marsh School), Richmond High,Porto la and Helms Middle Schools,East County Consortium (Alternative Programs in Pittsbur(T, A n itoch, County Office of Education) Regional Intake Short-term West and East Minors arrested 10-20 youth Probation, Program Assessment detention County by local law Health Services, elements Centers enforcement/ Social Service, defined. Diversion Youth pending law detention enforcement, No funding Early hearing/ Ca0s identified. intervention Status offenders 'INTERVENTION r.rr.r•`N, `.'PROGRAMS Drug Court Intervention Started in West To be Proposed 30 Juvenile Started in Wesl County,will determined youth per Court/Probation County in early eventually Probation officer 2000. expand to countywide Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 45 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY School Early Countywide 602 W&I wards, 1,000 youth Contra Costa Funded by BOC Challenge intervention; informal (approximately County Challenge Teams intensive probationers, 100 youth per Probation Grant. To be supervision non-ward police school) expanded using and school Crime referrals. Prevention Act funding. Adolescent Intervention Countywide, Boys and girls 40 clients in East Bay State Family Life based in between the Pittsburg,40 Perinatal Department of Program Pittsburg and ages of 14-21 clients in Health Services- Richmond years old Richmond funding renewed annually. CalLearn Intervention Countywide Provides 300 clients East Bay Funded by the Program comprehensive Perinatal Slate on a case yearly basis. management to pregnant and parenting teens on CalWORKs, have not received GED or High School Diploma Golden Gate Intervention and Countywide The goal of the Students who are COE Community Treatment program is to on probation,are School transition youth habitually truant, back to ordinary have been schools. expelled from other schools or have been referred by the District SARK. Volunteers in Intervention, Countywide Youth on Mentoring for 10 Probation SafeFutures Probation treatment Probation girls-mentoring funded. To be and other services funded with CPA by 50 volunteers 2000 dollars when SafeFutures grant ends 9130101. Step Up and Intervention, Countywide Girls leaving 20 girls and 20 Probation, SafeFutures Lead Girls treatment, Juvenile Hall/ adult mentors Families First funding. Crime Mentoring aftercare 12-18 years old Prevention Act Program who volunteer funding to be for program used when matched with SafeFutures adult 21 and ends 9/30/01. older for at least one year Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 46 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Richmond Gang Prevention, Kennedy,EI Youth in gangs 50 gang members Probation/WCC SafeFutures Intervention Intervention Cerrito High or at risk of gang returning from USD/RPDIDA/ funding secured Schools,Portola involvement OAYRF;90+'at Courts/Youth at Middle risk'in schools Services $350,OOO1year. Bureau/CEOs Crime Prevention Act funding to be used when SafeFutures ends 9130101. Mirror Images: Prevention West County Girls in selected Variable/30 WCCUSD/Youth SafeFutures Nurturing Richmond matched mentor- Services Bureau funding. Directions elementary mentee pairs (MIND) schools Mentoring Program Youth Court Prevention, Countywide Youth 12-17 as Variable Probation, CAO, Program to be diversion, clients with Juvenile Court, defined and Intervention misdemeanor to DA, PD,police funding serious offenses identified. Have secured volunteer attorneys. TREATMENT : K ._ t a x K't�5war Federal Family Early Countywide Families with Intensive in-home Probation, Started 1967/ Preservation/ Intervention youth at risk of family Social Service $660,000/year. Support out-of-home preservation Program placement/crisis serves 150 families per year Prevention Pittsburg, Families in Kinship Care Social Service, Started 1997/ Richmond target areas with (outreach, CBOs $300,000/year. dependent and advocacy,I&R) non dependent youth in their homes Prevention North Richmond Families in Shared Family Social Service, Started 1997/ target area with Care for 10 CBOs $140,000/ substance families/year living Coordinate with abuse,out-of- with 10 mentor SIT. home placement families for 6 issues I months Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 47 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY System of Care Intervention, County-wide A multi- Variable, Partnership Grant of$1.2 Treatment, component depending on between million received. Sanction grant aimed at service modality Probation, changing the school districts, way counties and County handle Mental Health emotionally disturbed children Summit Mental Post adjudicated Countywide Emotionally 20 boys Court County Office of Opened 11-96 Health Unit located at disturbed, ordered to Education/ with Aftercare Juvenile Hall serious placement and Probation/Health SafeFutures, site delinquents, screened by Services System of Care reduce group Probation and (3015), home Mental Health Probation and placements/12- MediCal 18 years old for funding/$1 6 months million per year. Crime Prevention Act 2000 funding will be a funding source. Day Treatment Pre and Post Three sites Youth on home 30 youth at each Probation/CBOs Began operating Program adjudicated supervision, site May 2000. electronic monitoring, placement diversion, probation Service Prevention Bay Point and Families 600 families in Contra Costa Integrated Integration I North Richmond receiving four or Bay Point and 300 County County services Family Service more County families in North of$1.7 million at Centers services from Richmond two sites/ three County developing departments seven additional (Health, sites. Probation, Social Service Youth Prevention Countywide Youth in juvenile 90 per month Health Services Started 1980. Interagency Early institutions Assessment and Intervention requiring crisis Consultation intervention and Team case management and psychological testing Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 43 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Youth Build Prevention West County Ex-offenders, 10-20 boys and HUD/City of SafeFutures Post adjudicated single mothers, girls Richmond funding at homeless,high $45,000/year. school drop- outs,gang members,West County residents State Family Prevention Bay Point, Families at risk/ Variable Social Service, $100,000/year Preservation Parkside, crisis in target Housing per site. And Support Coronado,North areas for Authority,CBOs Program Richmond community development, I&R,job skills and placement Juvenile Justice Substance East,Central Adolescents Variable Community New Treatment abuse outpatient and West who have Substance Connections, Programs treatment County substance Abuse REACH,Center Aftercare abuse problems Services/CBO's for Human Development, Self referrals Family Stress and court Center, ordered Crossroads High School for Pregnant Teens, Kaiser,Neat Family,New Bridge Found, San Ramon Valley Discovery Center, Gateway Project,TriCities Discovery Center,Youth Services Bureau. Chris Adams Treatment Countywide Adjudicated girls 20 residential Probation, Program opened Girls'Treatment with serious beds, 10 day Mental Health, December 1999. Center emotional/menta treatment slots Social Services I health roblems Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 49 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Education Treatment Countywide Provides COE The grant is for Technology resources for $21,500. Grant networking,the community school classrooms at Harry Ells, hardware, software and staff development _GRADUATED:: ti a ' 6, �r a qyL a� h II 5 a 7' t c' � i;i i :Y 1w �T 3 �t. G h.� 1 4 L.: '{H,Y'�Y�iA f Aftercare Case Aftercare Countywide All youth leaving 75 youth per Probation Funding secured Management OAYRF on caseload from specialized SafeFutures and caseload for 1.5 Probation for 2 months and then DPOs/Started put on regular 9-96. To be caseload funded using Crime Prevention Act 2000 funding when SafeFutures funding ends 9/30/01. Community Diversion, Pre West County, At risk youth and 35-60 per Probation, Three DPOs Probation and post Central County, court wards to caseload School Districts assigned to Officers adjudication East County reduce truancy Pinole Middle, and crime rates Mt. Diablo and around schools Olympic High, Pittsburg High and Riverside Continuation. To be expanded using Crime Prevention Act fundin . Transition Post adjudicated Countywide/ Low risk 25—50 youth Contra Costa Discussion with Center located at placement County I CAO,Probation, Juvenile Hall cases and pre- Probation Social Services. ranch Crystal Creek Post Countywide Ages 15-17, 24 boys Shasta County, Wait IisU$2,200 Adjudicated boys,no State of CA month/possible Aftercare violence, arson, entry to CA sex Conservation Corps after 18. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 50 PROGRAM CONTINUUM SERVICE ELIGIBLE PROGRAM SIZE SPONSORING STATUS CATEGORY AREA CLIENTS AGENCY Sherman House Post adjudicated Countywide 1 W&I 602,ages Six beds Children's Home Private Reunification Placement located in 12—17,no Society I Contra construction Diversion Central County violence, arson, Costa County funding provided serious sex for renovation. Probation referred New Juvenile Pre and post Countywide/ Youth detained 200 secure Contra Costa State violent Half/Treatment adjudicated located at and committed detention beds, County/ offender grant Facilities current Juvenile by court 100locked Probation provided funding Hall site for additional 10 beds. Construction expected to begin Spring 2001. Electronic Pre and post Countywide No violence, 75 youth Superior Start date 10195. Monitoring adjudicated arson,sexlin- Court/Probation Home custody Supervision screening by probation Orin Allen Youth Ranch Countywide/ Boys 12—18 Expand 74 bed Contra Costa Architectural Rehabilitation located in Byron committed by minimum security County/ program Facility the court facility by 26 beds Probation completed for additional Housing allows housing. for separation of younger and older boys. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 51 F. PRESENT ROLE OF COLLABORATIONS 1. History This Comprehensive Multiaaencv Juvenile Justice Plan builds upon more than a decade of work and activism in Contra Costa County. The County has been engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to improve its juvenile justice system for more than fifteen years, beginning with the creation of a Juvenile Justice Master Plan in the mid 1980s. The impetus for this decade plus of'planning and innovation was not tied to grant opportunities, but to concerns within the County to attend to the welfare of its youth and citi--ens. In 1992 the County Board of Supervisors instituted the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) to lead the County's efforts to replace or improve the Hall and to enhance the whole range of sanctions and services in the juvenile justice system. Today, JSPAC continues as an active voice in the County. JSPAC's membership includes representation of all of the County's youth and family service and juvenile justice agencies, along with representatives from other advisory boards, community based organizations and service providers, labor, taxpayers associations, and citizens from each supervisorial district. The following chronology summarizes the County's on-going efforts since the creation of JSPAC to review juvenile justice needs and create programs to address the issues identified in planning. 1994 JSPAC issues Continuum of Care report calling for 300 secure beds at the Hall site by the Year 2005, and urging creation of electronic monitoring, intensive supervision probation, locked mental health treatment, and day reporting. JSPAC also stresses the need for more programs for girls, to provide them equal access to services. • County Administrator's Office and Juvenile Court initiate study of the functions and operations of Probation. Among other things, report recommends"outstation In( probation officers in schools, police departments, and other local community centers. 1995 JSPAC's Continuum of Care results in federal SafeFutures grant, whichfunds mental health treatment unit for post-disposition boys (the Summit Center), intensive aftercare for youth leaving the Boys Ranch, school based prevention programs, gang intervention programs, and a Volunteers in Probation program. • Juvenile Electronic Monitoring (JEM)linstituted by Probation to ease population pressures at Hall. 1996 a Hall population down, in part because of JEM, but still over capacity on frequent occasions. • SafeFutures grant begins operation. Summit Center opens in unit adjacent to Hall, with 20 treatment beds for boys who would Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 52 otherwise go to placement. • Community Punishment Options Plan recommends expansion at the Boys Ranch and increased use of community alternatives (such as JEM and day reporting). 1997 • Planning begins for a Girls Treatment Center(comparable to the Summit Center for boys). • Hall capacity remains at 160. Custody alternatives(Home Supervision and JEM) up from 39 ADP in 1995 to 143 by 1998. 1998 . Work begins on 10-bed expansion to Hall (under Violent Offender Incarceration Grant) and 26-bed expansion at Boys Ranch (Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility). • Through SafeFutures, County receives OJJDP assistance in the "Comprehensive Strategy"—a planning model requiring detailed community risk data as basis for key leaders to set justice priorities. • Comprehensive Strategy's Strategic Plan completed by JSPAC, updating the Continuum of Care, and listing the following as top priorities: new Juvenile Hall, Girls Treatment Unit and other programs for girls, and day reporting program for boys. Comprehensive Strategy consultants work with Probation to develop "structured decision- making" (objective risk/needs instruments for classifying juveniles for probation supervision). • Funding identified for the Girls Treatment Unit; site and funding identified for day reporting center, also at current Hall complex. • County receives Challenge I Grant to place probation officers in schools. • Planning begins for day treatment for girls and for day reporting for boys. 1999 • Chris Adams Girls Treatment Center opens to serve as a residential placement for 20 girls who have failed other placements and/or who have serious mental health conditions that require intensive treatment and close supervision. • County receives Challenge II funding to focus on program for girls, including "Circle of Care" Day Treatment Centers and Living Skills Foster Care Program. 2000 The Edgar Transition Center, a day reporting program which allows early release to community supervision for boys, opens. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 53 2. Collaboration on Policy Making At the level of planning and policy making, Contra Costa County uses two main interagency bodies: JSPAC, which addresses juvenile justice issues, and the Policy Forum, initially established under AB 1741 to set overall policy regarding all children and family issues. The Policy Forum also works with the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors to oversee the Children's Report Card and the Children's Budget. Both JSPAC and the Policy Forum are broadly inclusive. The Policy Forum includes all pertinent county department heads, plus representatives of community organizations, cities, and schools. JSPAC's membership was described above. The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) serves as another key interagency planning body and works closely with the JSPAC and Policy Forum. The JJCC's membership is outlined in law, its make-up resembles the JSPAC's and the Policy Forum's. The JJCC played a pivotal role in updating the local action plan and preparing for submittal of our application for Crime Prevention Act 2000 (CPA 2000) funding by reviewing the status of the current system, identifying gaps in services and prioritizing programs. Another major collaborative is the Contra Costa Future Corps. Future Corps grew out of prior experience with the Business Leaders Alliance, an informal group of business executives who met with the County Administrator and members of the Board of Supervisors to discuss various topics of county management. The Business Leaders Alliance determined that its primary area of interest was in children and family issues, including juvenile justice. The Future Corps is designed to involve the private sector—businesses and private foundations—in a collaborative effort to enlist the community at-large in identifying and implementing needed prevention programs. 3. Collaboration in Service Delivery Interagency collaboration has emerged as a hallmark of how services are delivered in Contra Costa County. The County has two service integration sites—one-stop shopping locations—at which Probation, Social Services and other county agencies work as teams. Probation, Mental Health and the County Office of Education, for example,jointly operate the Summit Center program for boys as well as the Chris Adams Girls Treatment Unit. Under SafeFutures, the County fields the Gang Core Team—a collaboration of community organizations, Probation, employment agencies, schools and local police—to provide team case management of 50 active youth gang members returning to West County from the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF), the County's commitment facility. The Probation Department is continually striving to strengthen ties with outside agencies and groups. The County's Challenge I program, for example, outstations probation officers in high schools to provide supervision and intensive services to offenders and other at-risk youth. The program's evaluation have found that the Challenge Grant Probation Officers created new roles for themselves, becoming part of the school community. These probation officers also Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 54 established new collaborative relationships with many partners, including school administrators and staff. This emphasis on collaboration continues with the County's Crime Prevention Act 2000 application, as the programs proposed for funding all include a close working relationship with key partner agencies, both public and private. The proposed Community Probation Program, for example, will focus on outstationing probation officers in various police agencies throughout the county to focus on high-risk youth, at-risk youth and chronic offenders. Working non-traditional hours, the probation officers will collaborate with police agencies, schools and community based organizations to help prevent offending behavior. The program emphasizes the importance of maximizing the strengths of family, school and community resources when designing approaches for solving problems. Active participation and buy-in from all partners is critical to successful outcomes. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 55 G. STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM 1. Strengths The strongest aspects of Contra Costa County's juvenile justice system are for the most part detailed in prior sections of this report. JSPAC is one crucial asset. It is rare that an advisory group will maintain its commitment for so long. JSPAC has been an effective advocate within the County, arguing for and monitoring various enhancements to the continuum of care. JSPAC is also an example of the ongoing commitment within the County to collaboration and broad-based involvement in the justice policy making. A second strength is that there is broad coverage of all aspects of the continuum of care. Although gaps in service still exist, the County is gradually filling in those areas with new programs or new ways of providing service. The continual evaluation and review of the system facilitates the identification of such gaps. As previously discussed, interagency collaboration has increasingly become a central component of service delivery. The Summit Center, the Chris Adams Girls Treatment Center, the Gang Core Team, and the Challenge I High School Challenge Teams all represent examples of programs that have developed strong support and have produced positive outcomes, in large part because they are based on successful collaborations. All are also examples of the gradual breaking of traditional boundaries or walls between agencies. This focus on partnership enhances the quality and effectiveness of services. Another systemwide asset is the emerging emphasis on data-based policy-making and outcome driven budgeting. This trend is still relatively new in the County, but there is consensus that the approach is appropriate and healthy. As data systems improve, and as we learn how to use data in planning and program implementation and assessment, it is likely that our juvenile justice system will be more effective. It is also significant to note that intensive evaluations have shown that several specific juvenile justice programs operated by the County produce positive outcomes. For example, an evaluation of the Challenge I program found that the interventions and specialized referrals coordinated by the on-site probation officers resulted in clients being more attached to their school communities, creating more opportunities for pro-social development. A separate evaluation of the Circle of Care Day Treatment Program for girls that was funded with Challenge II dollars found participants experience fewer missed classes. Finally, evaluations indicate that placement and detention alternatives such as Placement Diversion, Family Preservation and Juvenile Electronic Monitoring not only help control costs associated with the most expensive resources in the system, they have also helped to strengthen families and mitigate some of the risk factors associated with delinquency. One parent noted that he liked the JEM program because it kept his child at home, where the parent could supervise the youth and enforce homework study requirements. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 56 Contra Costa County also has particularly strong aftercare services. It is well known that whatever benefits accrue from treatment while in custody or placement often quickly fade away when the offender returns to his or her home and neighborhood setting. To correct this, the County has developed intensive supervision and/or wraparound services for youth returning home from a variety of settings. Evaluations found that after receiving aftercare services, those youth who do re-offend commit less serious offenses. An additional strength is the County's in-custody programs and services. The boys ranch (OAYRF), for example, has a variety of sound educational, vocational, substance abuse and gang intervention programs. The Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center is a model for the state, if not the nation, in providing similar services for girls. 2. Challenges Through ongoing and inclusive planning and implementation processes,.Contra Costa County has built successful programs that directly respond to a variety of needs. One of its main priorities is to sustain those programs that have proven to produce positive results for youth, families and the community-at-large. Specifically, the County is focused on continuing the High School Challenge Teams and SafeFutures program, the grants for which are scheduled to conclude within the 2001-02 fiscal year. Its CPA 2000 application prioritizes continuation of these programs, because their loss would severely weaken the County's Continuum of Care. The need to leverage and blend funding remains an ongoing challenge. The County has long demonstrated a commitment to leveraging funds as a way to better meet the multiple needs of clients and provide a richer array of services. Its Summit Center, for example, blends funding from such sources as federal SafeFutures grant dollars (which are scheduled to expire in the 2001-02 fiscal year), AB 3015 mental health system-of-care moneys, Medi-Cal matching funds, County Office of Education and County General Fund dollars. Although the blending of funding leads to the availability of more integrated services, achieving this positive outcome can require a great deal of effort. Too often, Contra Costa County, like other public agencies, encounters federal and state regulatory barriers in its attempts to blend funding. The County continues to work to identify and eradicate these barriers so that youth and their families can receive needed services. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 57 II. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS AND OTHER AREAS FACING A SIGNIFICANT RISK FROM JUVENILE CRIME Following is a review of community indicators of various risk factors known to be associated with delinquent and violent behavior that was produced for the County's 1998 Strategic Plan. The tables depict the relative severity of each risk factor by city. The number "1" means that the risk factor is relatively low in the city, while"Y" means that the problem is relatively severe. Although the data is far from complete, it does provide a picture of what problems are found in which areas of the County. It is important to note that the severity of these risk factors plays a major role in the determination of program sites. Communities facing more serious problems would receive a higher priority for an out-stationed probation officer in the new Community Probation Program, for example, as compared to a community with lower risk factors. In determining site selections, the County uses this information to identify areas of high need and then works with the appropriate partner agencies, such as police departments or schools, to finalize locations. Please note that the following tables were copied from the 1998 Strategic Plan. • • 111 �::ru::Y'.':.•�:e�r.'�?e�zi rt:.=rt�'='�::5:.:.'J�.:::t: ':=1Y s•T:�` -i._3%�i•:.�i:t�:�:4t.}s_to:'.ir.'•:°,E��.EiuC•ss>•.�Ea a.:::�d.���r_•::.._ .......... .s3-:�°�:.a:..:....:iw:s r 1 ��'�� {•t�s>r'rs...a .�...Y;� ..�'�- .._�'�*_•.�;:..L._�.:s. -t•3'...r�.:.,.:+.,iv5 t:.:. ..a:...�:.a:wr:s�•. ..i-?�'�e'as=� ietT�i?�3R��t:�:Jsk ii.aa"+!T".y�_'Lq�a���a '�' .'�•.•� s?:.. •tet _ �t'::�:�'�••si--�i�i��i• "�'��%•ti?i-":s. �s :ra•Ig;;:yir.•._• ::_...��......�:.:�..-r.. . -.L'E" .. s•:z; �F�^,'.'•F.'x!•: ..'•.� i�:. -�:F.! ..�s 1 its.'t.Fti.. '� moi:.' �r- r 3'e:•=} • {�� sem: • •..��ss�,.!A�� i.E•.� i•swe..:_....�:.� ��k __ ...._':;t« �;.._r. ..:. ........sa-^:�:.-.:e: ! 1 1 fie«-�r4��'/�. � �'T=�a:Tt� -im£��ca"'t�ri+ii�'�i:�.faE �M' x7riSiaN1 •iri?:ir.. ::s;.s� 'r s�::,:�.:.t^,y.'sr�•a.. ,�„ .�.... .. z.:... :r.,..-..... .. _ .•u•. +moi - _. i:.••�._..�-i,�:_ .. .. _�'d�.•Jlk Ei:.. .�::.rt_... ..... _: x •-rnik+ �'irr:txEi�...'-u.tiynu. ctya�1:-:s+ _• ct. 111 •• • . :�I.Ji'Lrxl••cAtr..:: ...:. . .._.--rs::::::r. :: ••:::Ga:.t..:::t:.. --ts-- '..xx:ax am a •:a•:s.-was:'. '�Y::s .:•:ai. Ma am rsn_... a e s a c^:::`s• -���•.a•r• _ Mi .:. a.. J"=r=•-v=mss'=..� - ���-s.^^r._:r..�ee�:::l.. '_.i:..�?re�•o"^E..sr.:-_•::t .:. _.>< •i tc::aw .;?:/•'•• :• 1./?! .. :�e_.• ...:•..._..•^..•Ji:�'icrsry'..• q: .�-s.C••a ,-: �: '":.r»:.:ra'•:s...,ri:c ;_ _ra? .Tt i v s is• _c�• �• rTrw�7£s iJ.••.• r •• 1 • • • • -ir": s 7J—=V3x,�_ r^ic.r.;Z-.•� _��"r-_ ..t-c: t r'ci'_^�._, .. .. .. •s.s•.. sr.. � tw. •' ....... �,. :s •rxs . -•e -a:s.::a•—.r._•s:::c-r-...n:.::.:.: ._...s...::-•..... ..:.ax....•--.:r=t%�+.y^i�:^�Itr.._�s>�:a.xl.�....,..a.—t....r•'-'�. �sL:_..i�a:•• :s="•�:�....r:a:•�a:... .y ....................r::: ..r-1 ............_...........r::....t..:t::..............t::::::rs:.:�r�:r.:e::rs::�t.•....::•:..-:rr.:....._t:ta:...::1.:..t-:...:e::.-:::r�...."'r�'.•'e:....... ..:r.F'.'lr.::..:r.:�::........... :..stt--r. 111 • • • • •'i.^ al !t� ::f.i�1� .1' ''J i'C.�.t'•• .Y_•.• 7J�• 'F'hi':~ .:S'. .f.: ,.•1„ °•E.�.e:..E:....':::.s.�.�._w�1°5`�%..±: .ri.2.:i yY.....�...[:e:..,L...,__;..::;c...'• �t e:::'?.:rte ..s....:'tom': •'tl:::r:�:^ :.;'Y.... _ ....t... .:f.• :.:'i_.... ...r.�_i:.'iei ''- :�i:.�res�:=. fir N;Fr,;;iii "J• •i:i:•i! E•1. J•'t�— :,•r n• ::ii: "':i..•' ..r._.... .::i..•^.:'.'•.. �:R•.i ..:.....r..s. :r:;.a.•;,..�;..•r. , cc:r:r"t__.. .t _._ •s .............._: 'r•:::s•...._,..•. �. ..........:�..r. t'r. :-••••+:•c:ta::«-..;.:.�.. --•-•::a:: ......t:::::::':.e.....s��.i:-:'7'�".:-4'"::::Y:7'...�•:.:u�..��::::: ::s::l:i• r•"•-Js... a_a.�......... ............ate..««:....::............... ...........-:... ..a cur=ice s-L••'r� •:;•_r4. _ - ...arr•... ._:.r;:�... - :.:••T •• a!1 !�. •cei i$:Eic .::u�:.ruiSi::�..uila�'.�.. iiK:�• ~��~ �,w• �:E,I�s-s.lyl�..1:..�'.:ar::....:.:x:^... i:i....jiir.�' :S�,r^.�:.:E:1.:? �3cc• www^ �" •c..•�t......,r. s:_.r: s• d' _..:r r.'I"�`.. s. : •..• 1. - =ie �t+•—e s :.�...:.1�:.....°l..3...�a.... �1';•�s:ess:S .s'...:......nJ.:•..a:::.;.Es..r:Y.�......ad!�..:�.•`:t'��i.;;�. T:�e:'-:_��'. ........... ... ::::: ...�....... �.._......_.. ...._.............s:e_Jr�•._..._s�•:->;'a::.::.•:st:.:: :::aiS3±i:-��%ei^.:;�::::iEE_s;;:.a:^.�•: �°'::s°:::!�'�?i:i::E.+.•'i i ....._.....:t..... .r.............._.. .... _ .....::s._......_........^.....- »....t•s:::::::::•_::::::e•ss:::.. .............:::•....y:•::•:::':s: ...�.. :'�ti•.....::':ii:i:ii: ':s::s, ::sts::s:::::::•.:�::tr::?.^r:a'_::::_:?:�::x::::?:::..........::�:•:•:_::..'�:::::::::::r.........J.......r..sr...s.. .•:::as:::t:•.••..r::�'::=::i�s:•:..:.x:'::Y:.;,. ii :: • - a • • ti o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f✓ O O O N O O O O O O O to to O O h O to O 1` M O to p Q tf7 h N O CO QI N M lO O l0 m M O m T w IV a) tD to M a1 ty Q M to v n o .= ^ e•i ao vi ri to kt to as ai .= ti I. to ►� to � T T a 0 a A O r 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o a o m c o � T h o tD t0 h M o r a1 t0 of to to O 1 of O r T T N T r C N O A tt7 � 7 d O a E 1` O OO 0 O O O O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O u >, 1` O O ON O O O O O O O N N O O N O to O t, h to N O C C � to to N p r of T M co G t0 M M p a1 T t0 MCL al at a1 N O Q M b �t O T T W M co M w w an w m O T T N In to T N N N le e0 r T CLett 7 o O CL E .p n O r Ln Ln N O O Lo co O C et of co of of of to o O N to y et T _ N N N O O M .941 1` of M ee t�- RP d O 1- N of M O M -W N M v et tD tD M tD O 0 "O N N N of 0 a1 M H '-W N h cc WW WN of M O O Oo of in Q N to In on In h N N _ co m to N d U a1 N l0 d �! •et -Rt M M v -Tr � tT a1 a1 a1 a1 T P O m of _a Q) a1 Q1 a1 a10) a1 T O O a) cn a1 T _d N N to Go co N O ami m m C ami � Ll N O r r Q h co Go at 0) of 0) Qf N h L L _CI QI d tV VI VI C C C E E M ,E L L O U U ` C a C d d' 'C ~ tO > > c " CL R e E E •°� o o Y u u U m 0 3 Q c to = to = > t O s L U > + >a CL _ u U >�Ac O O Tr t0 A Y to m to u tv =_ Z Z m o m 'd m o o a S r 0 0 m o o L CM Q •C c ami °f v, �'c o to c o L° o L° — 3 3 E v o u c o o — m o R to of m vs to E o c o. u u i d 'h c otE� m N E o E o a c a c Id C Q C V C L L Y C O A L C Q ►� CI 0 l0 Q l9 C d U U Q 'Q m m U U U 0 w 2 �c m m 0 0 a a a w w N o mUca) 3 indicator of children in poverty: school lunch assistance % of children receiving free or reduced price City lunches rank San Pablo 79.3% 5 Richmond 75.6% 5 Pittsburg 65.7% 5 CrockettlRodeo 39.8% 4 El Cerrito 38.9% 4 Antioch 38.7% 4 Brentwood 35.6%- 4 Concord 35.4% 4 Oakley 32.1% 4 Pinole 30.9%- 4 Martinez 24.4% 3 Hercules 23.6% 3 Byron 17.2% 2 0 Pleasant Hill 14.9% 2 Walnut Creek 6.8% 1 Kensington 6.6% 1 San Ramon 3.3% 1 Clayton 2.8% 1 Danville 2.1% 1 Alamo 0.7% 1 Lafayette 0.1% 1 Moraga 0.0%- 1 &n�nd a 0.0% -Source: School Enrollment and Meal Enrollment, 1996 California Department of Education, Education Finance Division Reported by school 1 7 IOnly elementary school data was used because there is more intermingling of�areas areas middle and high schools. O 4) Do CO SO C14 CL r- (0 co C14 (D QQ T-: W; r,� t.: C-icq r.: vi c; ci cq cd 4 MM Cl) M 04 V- N- C41 V) CV) V) co C14 Na) w a) (0 C*) tt tTs e* Oa C14 C4 I- co (4 r- Cl) Cl) Ct W) to to M C 0 0 CD 0 0 in it co N to E 04 to C) M to CD a V C%4 m W) to I* = 't to a C*4 m 10 .- 'r I, co 't co C14 "a V- cn in C4 w r) P� W) w C4 r-- m "It 0 4m co co Cl) C4 CL LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 = a = a C 0 = #0 = -r- 0 = o c S. 4* = 0 = 0 -6 0 -6 u — 0 — U — u U — 0 — u u — u u 0 cn 0 ct) 0 C5 0 (o 0 ch 0 co a ca 0 co 0 (n 0 cf) 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c a) U) wEcn UO) V'J) Wu UO) N) con cn cn C C c 0 c m m E E E E E E E E E E E= 0 0 CD W -V 0 "a w ME ui E El m w2 w2 Lu Lu V 0 0 0 0 0 0CmC 0m:to 0 0 0 CC 0. 0 S , = Z: 's 0 0 0 u a o o o o E E -E I r .5, 0 0 C c .0, > > E E a a 0 0 C a 0.- " 0 2 e c c o o 4m — — 0 0 < da In co mm 0 L) 0 0 ou 00 w w = x 0 O cn r N CD CD tTl f H r a, 'R 'R 'I N m (7) co m ca 04 0 C; t6 wi 1': 0 00 4m C-) tp N C4 MW LO 11 1- a) c CC w C4 m to ID LO CO LO C14 a) cl)(D C4 CD w C%4 W CD co co V) 04 0 m cc C4 V) CD M o to C,4 C) m co C14 w w Iq C14 M r M C4 0 0 C T7 m C3 In cn PI- Co to W- C4 4m co cn CD C) W) CO V to C:j C,4 (D C4 w cn v w co C%4 -t t— co oo T- W) CD m CD rl� C� Co C4 7E C.4 CM W 0-1 T- 04 W. T.- m N co LU to tN 0 J9 I T 0 (a cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aa 0 0 0 0 = co-6 = -6 0 = -6 u 0 u 0 U) 0 co 0 co U) cn 0 co 0 C6 co 0 ca 0 ch 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n cn U) cn (n w cn cn cn (n U) co c c C c a r_ 0 0 0 0 4) 0 W CD 2 .0 0 0 0 0 ID m 4' (D E E E E -0 E E E E E E E w -0 -v :2 iu- W i-u E Lu � cu- m ui m m w uj *0 "a 0 a 0 E 0 Ell �c C c :5 :5 E :3 C C 0 0 m cu cu cu ca mcc m c c tm CM In 10 E E t: sc si c c 00 a c is to o o m 0 mm c C 43 Cu Co E2 2M 00 00 as as as it W co co cO cl) Indicator of community norms and parental involvement in crime: adult felonry probationers Total felony Rate per 1000 Place Population probationers residents Alamo 13,477 3 0.22 Antioch 76,500 254 3.32 Brentwood 14,500 32 2.21 Byron/Discovery Bay 7,200 9 1.25 Clayton 10,050 14 1.39 Concord 111,800 332 2.97 Crockett/Rodeo 11,900 55 4.62 Danville 47,200 29 0.61 EI Cerrito 23,300 21 0.90 Hercules 18,800 38 2.02 Kensington 5,000 3 0.60 Lafayette 23,600 9 0.38 Martinez 41,850 120 2.87 Moraga 16,350 9 0.55 Oakley 25,000 51 2.04 Orinda 16,900 3 0.18 Pinole 18,150 40 2.20 Pittsburg/Baypoint 69,800 336 4.81 Pleasant Hill 31,450 50 1.59 Richmond 106,900 623 5.83 San Pablo 37,300 158 4.24 San Ramon 41,950 26 0.62 Walnut Creek 76,200 69 0.91 Source: Count of Adult Felony Probationers -January 1998 Contra Costa County Probation Department Provided by area Indicator of community norms and parental involverne d in crime: adult felony probationers Rate per 1000 Place residents Rank Alamo 0.22 1 Antioch 3.32 4 Brentwood 2.21 3 Byron/Discovery Bay 1.25 2 Clayton 1.39 2 Concord 2.97 4 Crockett/Rodeo 4.62 5 Danville 0.61 1 EI Cerrito 0.90 2 Hercules 2.02 3 Kensington 0.60 1 Lafayette 0.38 1 Martinez 2.87 4 Moraga 0.55 1 Oakley 2.04 3 Orinda 0.18 1 Pinole 2.20 3 Pitts burg/Baypoint 4.81 5 Pleasant Hill 1.59 2 Richmond 5.83 5 San Pablo 4.24 5 San Ramon 0.62 1 Walnut Creek 0.91 2 Indicator of Child Abuse: Suspected Child Abuse Referrals Received Children Referred Town per 1000 Residents Rank Alamo 0.74 1 Antioch 12.30 5 Brentwood 7.38 4 Byron/Discovery Bay 3.06 3 Clayton 3.88 3 Concord 7.77 4 Crockett/Rodeo 12.10 5 Danville 1.02 1 EI Cerrito 2.15 2 Hercules 2.66 3 Kensington n/a n/a Lafayette 1.57 2 Martinez 8.32 4 Moraga 0.98 1 Oakley 10.40 5 Orinda 0.71 1 Pinole 2.70 3 Pittsburg 13.17 5 Pleasant Hill 3.66 3 Richmond 8.22 4 San Pablo 9.07 4 San Ramon 1.45 2 Walnut Creek 1.71 2 Source: Children in Referrals Received -Sept 97 - Feb. 98 Child Wetfare Services/Case Management System Information is provided by zip code and may contain duplicated children if more than one referrals were received in more than one month O 00 O CO h O N to tD I` N O O to N 1- W r N M 1` r O tO to Cl) tr NT t` 1` r to NO qq 1` C O N 1- M M 1- N r N N - 00 O O O N M M 00 C) T-- CL L Q r r r r (l) O M r N � � A c O r h N O C) tb O IT O 1• 00 tD O N O C) LO M N r 0 N M r -tr O N M CD to O to M C r tD r r r O N tO M Co Q y C) r 00 r M N (7) r 00 ":r r C) 1` tD a c a� T- O N N N C') IT O tO V M "T CD N N M c`1 r r 1� LO O 00 r r o LC) N LO M r r N LO co (D N CD V) r co C) cn r r r r r r N tt) r to L C r a� u N N N O r T O C) C) Izr N 'IT (17 O 1` M O V LO M tO Q f` C) y N N N M r N r t0 t U C m O m 00 tO C) co '.�r to O C) qr to CO c O r Cl N tD CO 1` N M tD 00 O N c 1` r LO N N r tO r tD O T O r r r r r C) tD O C r U Z LO Itr to M ti to r Cf Ln 't7 CO O N M M M 1` r O r to O M 1� r` c r r N r r r M M N r to M CD O C � o) U) y C N 7 Q N LO V r N N tD C) N to N r tO X 0 0 (3 N 41 1— N to C) o M N r tO M r N N M h r N r W O L Q) r O r- o to C 0 C13 O ti NT O tD r 'V N CO ti C) 00 �o r r M tO tO 07 ffl tO N O � c c O O r r h N r co tO r O N M Co O N r N r N M t4 T- d C LL !d Q7 O b "a c = c Yc, CL c L O > C 2 C N 0 N tQ �, tt! = C O O d N 3 C O V p p O p O QI tt) Q1 y 7 ., O -0 E c U 0 3 E o rte. u aS c �, R — c o c R to U 3 c m V w n- . a: cn c c o Y a r 0 0 0 o U to tr 4T RT Lo Ln to Ln W) W) W) 0 Z [A to -0 -10 -0 -301 -001 m N 0 00 14T 'RT CO d' r T in C*4 T rl- C4 cl) 00 sn M C*) N (D 00 uj Lei r; N c,4 ci ej a; 6 wi cj cj c%i a; a; CO cd a6 c6 E Z5 a) in 4m m (n cn cn cn cn w co co co w co t-- t� r, r-- t- t- t- o 0 u ro a3 0 > 0 cu u 0 cr. in 0 0 B 0 4) 'a o L: C: o 'w E u 0 m — E 'Cc Mn -6 r o .2 a. c u u C1- :�- 6, r 0 ,a o cc iC a) 4) (n > u r cc d) CU m m cu �c cl cn 0 2 m 0. H: < (n C13 u u CL E LO c CL (n LO M gn Ln es t7 c d M m cl m c cc EL o ul 0 Im u tII CD cn (A co o Go co r- w too q co mowc4ln ,,- o CL C CL O 0 "o CD c -0 N CD m 0 w ca m E E ID a c o C U) as c u o 0: c m .2 Y- a. cn m,< H: m o E: Uwcn 6 a- Indicator of the availability of alcohol and drugs: alcohol outlets Rate per 1,000 Place Liquor Stores Residents Rank Kensington n/a n/a n/a Brentwood 19 1.31 5 San Pablo 49 1.05 5 Crockett/Rodeo 12 1.01 5 Richmond 87 0.89 4 Martinez 36 0.86 4 Pleasant Hill 27 0.86 4 Pittsburg 53 0.76 3 EI Cerrito 17 0.73 3 Pinole 13 0.72 3 San Ramon I 28 0.67 3 Concord 74 0.66 3 Antioch 50 0.65 3 Walnut Creek 48 0.63 3 Clayton 6 0.60 2 Lafayette 14 .0.59 2 Oakley 14 0.56 2 Danville 26 0.55 2 Byron/Discovery Bay 3 0.42 1 Orinda 7 0.41 1 Hercules 7 0.37 1 Alamo 5 0.37 1 Moraga 4 0.24 1 Source: Count of Retail Licences in Contra Costa County as of July.1, State of California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control Information provided by zip code EEI Indicator of the availability of alcohol and drugs: alcohol outlets Rate per 1,000 Place Total Population Liquor Stores Residents Alamo 13,477 5 0.37 Antioch 76,500 50 0.65 Brentwood 14,500 19 1.31 Byron/Discovery Bay 7,200 3 0.42 Clayton 10,050 6 0.60 Concord 111,800 74 0.66 Crockett/Rodeo 11,900 12 1.01 Danville 47,200 26 0.55 EI Cerrito 23,300 17 0.73 Hercules 18,800 7 0.37 Kensington 5,000 rd n/a Lafayette 23,600 14 0.59 Martinez 41,850 36 0.86 Moraga 16,350 4 0.24 Oakley 25,000 14 0.56 Orinda 16,900 7 0.41 Pinole 18,150 13 0.72 Pittsburg 69,800 53 0.76 Pleasant Hill 31,450 27 0.86 Richmond 97,670 87 0.89 San Pablo 46,530 49 1.05 San Ramon 41,950 28 0.67 Walnut Creek 76,200 48 0.63 Source: Count of Retail Licences in Contra Costa County as of July 1, 1997 State of California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control Information provided by zip code _ ' 1 Y C M w N 'rl M M M N 4= m 0 c v -0 10 "0 mm m m m m r` O r` tD CO M r Qf r r M V O CA N f` 00 N � �_ E E E EcDomrnmr. LnMMN7O mm °Or` — C Z -_ vc •C CO r` LO M M M M M N 0 0 0 O m m V 0 V V CL O O O O m C C C C LO C13 m m m ti C) O _C r > 'Y m C O O — m �S Qc c cc Cc Fs Qea m�, UxY V m o o me = arf O oC0 -a E� tc ° � m ° 2 eo > CD f O�W E E ° u ° v v _ m C Um m 3 4m 03 o m tO Yc� O �Ovoofa. < 0 m2mo � coo m m •• m Cc m m � 0 U M o low WVV VVM MM O O III m w w O E C o r es e0 ca e0 = C 0 W 0 CL m m m 0 m V N N CD CA W V N N N CO W O W W m M r CA O C m Z Z Z Z N N N r r r r O CA f` t` f` M M M N N O m W C mV V 47 V 3 — ° ` C C G C J m mci LL E C Q ; m m � V � C '� m O >•+ m r � E M m m +. m - m O lc l0 iQ+ w � CUm1-6 � m !Uo° Ozw p mre .O0. — CL F CO r> -0 — x 70 U ° p QO NE ° vCm mo oo E ° o 0 m o 0� u o � c >, !t °0o co .1 CnaElL = Y cAU � n- `Q 0 0 0 �; ► M `P Q c7 O CO a! N b CA CD m O O O of ° E o CN o o Z Q " r N C) C G M m cn V T C) T o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q OCA 0 0 O OLo w S �D T— M 0 O m O p O �V C') N S m D N O C7 O > C > C 7 7 h Od7 0 Co 0 N b h M 7 0 N 0 *" O �- N � co N 4n C C m O m m > > m CO N m e+f m r N tO 0 r to C r N .° > > 7 � 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N p 07 O CD O .- O O N p CD CD n p O O r O' N 0 V L r CC) M :2 v Cfl O O CCy w ° N N r r r C N co N >+ a 1+ a O m N G LO co N Q! N C r m r v O m c W r r di _ N I o � CA � t- n Lo to 'T N CO N N (`) r r � N N It O V O v a « CO C S N CO 1- �- f7 IA E co g �° C) n r WD A Z N 0 0 o a 'S ~ U- ~ ti w 4x a Al o m o c 2 y o o G $ o ° 0. ocm 'a e a a ° ° m a m U. 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ti o m 0 00 o m r c m `� V 0 a o a va e0 a ami m 10 `-'• �'a c i m �o 0a 0 c'' o a 0 C4 c C1 0m C m U 0 a C •� d C �.- O C O CO C C m O m O m Cs a a a v v a v v a v 'a v m 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 L L L t L L L t L Z 0 V U V V V' U V V V D E a 0 TO.� T 0 C C C c C C C C C Q u c c c c c c c c c �►— Q QQQQQQQQQ mmmmmmmmm m ❑ CD C-4 0 0 0 N Q -T , (D co(D m O O t T 0 0 t T 0 0 0 o 0 o a o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o o T o 0 0 T— r 0 0 0 0 0 0 T— O C43 m 0 0 `T C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 c m N c� CO O O > > c) c c r Z ,c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in 0 co O o to r — r C m m m m m CV 0 0 0 0 C7 m CN C 0 0 'm Na y 0 j � 7 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r pC7 O O O O ? N p r r C1 O O (D d .0 p O O O O h m' �_ t[7 O m O N 40O C7 r O r N T o T A p Iwo m _ mr 0 N v 0 0 0 0 CD O LO •� M � O M r- E N N N � TS co CIO r r � m o7 cel O O O r• O r a0 S m � G� W C � w 7 (7 r 7 co ao C7 r O O O O O r 0 E 8 ° ° U. 24 c2 oo ns 0 8 02 42 00 $ o {�+ a a ° �° E a ° •• CL Qt C pa a C U T ° C O O U m m U.U. CD Q ('! OO O CLrn O r- O �— L r O C m e— N c a o a 7 o m N m a m m a Co C6 c E 7 C14C Q Q c7 0 d _ a0 c r, a c O Q c O c c m o m Q m ma CL c c c c c c c c c E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v u V v v v �[ m a�`C m e'0 oe esV O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O UUUUUVUvv 000O0000rl r) re C-4 Y V: 9 C-Ir. 'o 9 -1 o C) co C14 to a co in tO of cn cp E E cD CA C,) CD en F- 'a C, O 0 0 0 4m 7E t; 0 72 t 0 72 > .2. Lo to C: CD 'o KY M 0 0 %n CO) LO r 04 O 04 m NC14 00 C 0 o OR cl 9 q (9 w! N p f 9 Cl 9 CV "a cr) -w so 04 •CO to c) C4 (a .41 U) to CO C.) (,4 to C4 y- O M C? co co r4 O O Mq- cc t- o en 0 -0 :3 r- co (M C%4 co Q3 I cc) E E .9 2 772 o 0 0 0 C4 U. 2 U- o 0 0 o 0 0 v cc, c = 0 r , o o 12 CL 0 — 7E 1! 0. M < CL a 0 0 UJ U. U. I CD CD C) CD Q cn CL CD Cp C4 c:, C) c 0 0 CD <D cr) en m CL 0 CL 0 0 a. CL 0 0 0 IV 0 CD CLI CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 2 02 222 41 *1 -5 -5 -5 5 ,55 5 "5 cac acca 000 00000 go L) C) 0 0 clal a Q 0 190- so 40 lal I ED Lu Lu Lu Uj im Im lai E T- 2u, Im N O CA CO O O C7 N O ti I` O O O 00 O u 0 /-� O CO O O 2(� `y� ap UY o T iA O c'7 'J+ I O N o 0 0 o a o T U? CA 0 0 0 t� 09 .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >. C `m N 0 0 0 op C m O O O O O O O > C oD , m � C 7 � Y O O O N N 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C m m m m > > 13 C 7 m t`. O N O O m r m O T 0 0 0 0 T _ T Cl) to C m w > w > 7 � 0 0 0 o a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 14 Cp U� T 0 0 1l 'Q N m Q CA 1- 0 0 0 W T NN ~ O O ON COO VCl)p O O O a0 N m m � e e � m m N N Lm O T O O o O m T T O C'7 r U O co r T O) O v v N (`7 N LO N O c'l co °c T a ° m c E : tD O m N m ti _ � � N O ch � 8 O C �- C O O O ~ LL ~ U- O O C = m ' m Z W C m C O o = o m m m Y U. OO p O 00 C7 OCD O t" IQ O T r OL O V m Clm O r Q O T a _ L V CO N Q N m co ca D. 40 m aO q cri O= C r.4q . O C CLL w d c o = 0 0 m 0 w w m m CL a c c C c c C c c C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m O co O co co 03 O 0 tm > > > > > > > ? C C C C C C C C C cccc E! 22222P- m o m m o m o o m o o m m o m o o m N o 0 0 0 0 o e T aE o 0 0 0 0 LO O (D C7 O m C` C1 in 'v C7 O O O H O E a CA cp cv ri O �t �t O E O O h Ln 4m O o ,= r N Z r N N r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o U) o 0 0 0 � c m o g o 0 0 •= C m ac � o 0 o ai � r Co cl C In O r r O O O N h N w r O O O r C m m r l'7 r N O r Co N (�) N r 0 0 w _ m r m r N r > .0 > 7 � 0 0 0 0 M o 0 0 0 o e o o a a o o e o o O o 0 0 0 T p O O C? O N p r Q) c7 O O O N LO O co O ti � ' m N LOO O O r CA m r r r r r 0 � p p m m O N O O r O r f+ c7 O O N D T O E N r T co N O O O c) r cD C', �.+ N r N r C- .. tD QJ UA N N 3 5 C y0 V .°. W C _ r CO to Co O `Q' Of w LO 0 Lo ^ N _ N N CN r CO g ti O N N EC C 8 LL LL Im 0 CL COL 2 E � � Q � c a ma n a a. a o C m m LL LL CD c N O O 040 0 N O O M O -w CD O r N 00 m �C C') C m r a � a 2 aA a a ao m a' m CC LO m m CL co a N E fn G 0 7a ti (A N O CL o o C (D (D m m CLI a m o o m m m c c 4 FN c c c c c c wawa : ww � � � � 7E � � � r O O O O a O O O O O O 0\ ° E Z Z g °J m ° E o o 0 o cv to Z = LO N O r C O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 > C > C O LA 0 0 0 0 %n n OC-40000 N m m m 7 7 m O ("') O O Wo O O N O O O O N m 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N e O Cl O O O O 11 ' C) O aD ' 0 7 0 0 0 0 m ch .f G LO l0 cc cc m m N O O O O O N cc r r N N Lo 0 0 C) O! (7 f- O �•' N �! C E — N N CD O O Y7 M — Q7 t7 O r O r- N tp .� C .� c O O O O rj ~ LL ~ U. T 00 tom Cc ffi o m 2 ° $ o m 2 o o r o C. ° t � �° a � m o .. T a a s Tz n a c c O 0 2 m m aL o c o �„� o rn o CD r. C:, ` o ` mCDm c CL r a c a o w o ` a a m m a rn e. °r° m a N ci O E o m o c m a m o U a c � o c ,m O a c C o c m m a a m eu m m m eo m 0 ao eo m Y c c c c c c c c c O o o o o o o o ol 0 tV L t t t Z Z Z Z Z O 010101010 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 0 0 o r o0 0 o a o ie g N .p cp n O O O h N V r Q1 M O Of 00 O E c r n Iti o o m (I ° E � c� cvo � m O in N t r v r ffi � 00 c gh0c ;e 0 c4i v Z Z 2 e m Z 2 Z N cl 2 > c > r � r Cl) m m m o > > m O r O O O N P1 m pp 41 C7 O r in f7 n C r O 41 O m ++ > « > 7 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r b m n n o o � W r p N n In o o v N c7 r in O O m C .0 a0 O to O M !� C; a N N N N a r N r r � ro a m i 0 ci 1m9 ml0 �+ In eD NO O M °� >. 00 O r m O m N r r r N Q N In LO r b �C 00 (7 fh C7 N N w..+ co c C" .. N N N w 0 C4 00 C O O — <0 « IQ C CO � tn r r- -W N co co n v co C-) E O N Cl) In N _ o O n N N N cn O O O O r ~ U ~ U. o 2 a o 0 0 Lm 50, 2013 -50 0, 0 � c 0 c Q Q a c n es Q a a c a c o a a CDP m m O O GO p ` O p L C m p C m N m O m a m6 a ti CL "' o n. N m Ci c CL c w a.. c w c c c C 73 0 m m CL a E* E' Lm Lm E' E' E' Lm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P f A f P f P P a. Eadaa:EEF C ' o 0 0 0 e r 0 0 0 0 0 o u CR Q7 n O cD Iq ea g N O Q] o E c v m eCi N ° E r r� 6 o ea ap 0 r' N n N v eh c c e c c n o 0 0 o a o 0 _ r m C7 O O O O r •" N O eD O O n n T_ cn C) Q Q O cm T_ O n •- O ai m e m c7 S S m e m M r r N > C > C y� n en O v .- O N h cn to tO N O .- en C'4 CD C C � a7 0 m m N N v m m m r n N m op _ r Q to � 7 o a o 0 0 0 oe o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 C4 a n n v r r` o c•i n m 0 o m n r a6 w o m ao r N r r O .- N N r T 0 T aco m7 a) V T-0 cr) h T'u m 1: 0 �Q O O r 0 r p a0 N O r) r C) r r. N O g E cy N ao as r a' n � m m n r C(pQ to n o+ uo °) N e[') m to m m m N 0 C ° ° 43 c n N tQ O n cA OQ) E m u' N C cc r N $ o o o 0 r0 ►- m LL LL 0 a0 a c o = oo m 2 0 p « � 0 0 0. 2 0 0 o c 2a o �° 0 e 2 = o 0. 0 Q cc CL a Q E ma a 3 r o m c ma m 0 0 0 o 0 D c O N O C� T T C r O r n. N d chm A N m O m d r ti d O a a) m N v a N m �` O CL c �' a° c O O C w 0 w m m CLI a C C C C C C C C p b a a a a o o E E E E E E E E of pQ aQ a7 � a0 aD A L L L L L L L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 cn c N r <h O O O ? ti N ch P7 O O O O CR N m co t` tD cn O ° E o r- C i o o ° E o p Lo o o ao tri ° E c c� ai ^ o c-i 0 o • .= r N V En a = r (.0 N to Q • -= r N V f` M N Q 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o 'n o 0 0 0 0 ffi o o a o ee h o 0 0 0 0 0 IT O O O to to �— �" ►- O O O O O N �— r O ti c7 to O O t-1 C m pp N IA N NCO C m (D CD O O O EO C m Ln F- tD C'') N Q n m "o 47 gn m N N to O M h Co rc cn O tr O O O O ► r cnto O r r t") C C m m 0 m m 0 > > > N c) `P h 0 Go O m ^ m � t7 M Go O r T N co Of C r w C w G O m O > O m 7 7 7 N b tD N CO O O ti] to N . q N U O O to h N ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl N N O � M t7 GU O) cq cn to O N co 'O ti ti N O O N N n �: # t+j a c4 m ° N N r m p Cl r N ° N ch N m m m m N N (D O c'7 N O N m c'7 O O t7 N N p O cc co cc O QJ to q, 1� _+ �. Qf N N O w. r N N •" t- M O m 7 N w a9 S C •O O O .2 t0 C 7 a to C'7 .-- Lo N O N O w Q •" to N r- a r M O m - _ O N to CI) M e- C7 c0 N N _ m m n r E .� C N N r ~ C .� C N 8 O O O O O O O U. U. LL. ol o o 2 ° o w o a o 2 o o o m o m 2 0 0 o c t m o Q v to ° a ° E CL ° Q a. a s Q pC a s Q a s C e0 CC C O to O t0 m m m3 LL LL U- C) o 0 0 rn c w o � CL o r - o r. o ... C4 p ` r CD N m IT G m CO m o a 0 V a 0 t- a `m r- m m m a n R n o m as ao a rA o a o m 04 m ao 0 n Mm o 0 a m p rL m m o m a c� ' a. c w a c o c o c o c a� o m o m o m m m CL a a Jc x -IC W m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E B B :a n n n n E E E E E E E E V V V Q V V V V V M m e0 W to M M 0 m t0 eo m as W 0 tri 'S 'SIs 7 5 15 a. aa. aaa. a. a w c c c c c c c c c C C CC C C C C C C c C C C C C a s iu +d is at ea a � l0 /0 a0 W ds ei CO d, (n co U) co to N CO to U� to cn of ul len .n .., Misdemeanor Crime Statistics c c m c CC m m m m = m m m 0 m > 0 m O m Place E E ° E E ma Alamo 0 n/a nla n/a Antioch 2071 821 2892 37.8 Brentwood 289 186 475 32.8 Byron/Discovery Bay n/a n/a nla n/a Clayton 43 20 63 6.3 Concord 3239 750 3989 35.7 Crockett/Rodeo n/a n/a n/a n/a Danville 355 119 474 12.4 El Cerrito 581 164 745 32.0 Hercules 129 62 191 10.2 Kensington 52 2 54 10.8 Lafayette 175 86 261 11.1 Martinez 598 49 647 18.3 Moraga 101 104 205 12.5 Oakley n/a n/a n/a n/a Orinda 53 50 103 6.1 Pinole 417 157 574 31.6 Pittsburg 1106 204 1310 25.8 Pleasant Hill 514 170 684 21.7 Richmond 1828 215 2043 22.4 San Pablo 773 115 888 34.2 San Ramon 267 164 431 10.3 Walnut Creek 983 259 1242 20.0 Source: Adult and Juvenile Arrests Reported -January through December 1996 California Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Information Center Information reported by city limits. Information for unincorporated areas was not available by area. sp!B Aq ee o o `'C o o � e o 0 0 o O e O O sloueswepslw Z b `r o ''� N r c c� go th o C c C-i C ui r o o rn c w r- 09 ` y r t`i eh r e+i 10 % r, N r tV N n r O N v r r N N M N N t7 s p_i 6 A g ro ti m � N ^ A o o � eh m wo v� t0 s.ioueawapslw c N 2 c t) �A r O r N N c m .r v vS r f, m sAo �, q q � rn r os tv N v �n to C1'- o SJOUeaWaPSIW N C r ^ m o N m m N a`a r u� r tO o N h C r r r r r r r tD a) O m 6 IC e o \ \ e a s � s �. g ti r l� r tt{ o a a e e e t0 O e e o o e o e r O ` r C) a1 h to cn s a l u o a 1 O C N a•i C m ri C N v to o C O in ori CV tri O tV a C I l �O r r n O r O r r r r M Q U L C «I 65 m O L s iB U {� A m N m to 0 o Cr N r Ct h r n m N . �%q saluolal c N c c r r c r r r r �, r 0 W m � CD t7 N P r f� ra of Cf to m t` N ti CJ 0 S/tOq tQ m r C4 r o o 'CJ `, O �(q saluoial c r c N = N a1 U9 r N r c r t., w v m m o c QW cu m � C 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O �, C� o 0 0 w 0 0 00 0 0 o w w 0 (D w O w O w w O cc cc J 2"'iO cc! M r• m- w- (D_ fD_ MMC7l_ _ _ O_ r-_ 00_ -k C-1 01_ a1 o m OC to M to 14, f` O r 00 O M Co Lo M 4) co Lc) (D co O c- r• O r N 03 6- - M N N M r N r r to V) M N 'at tD V E o " a- v m V O co >% e- C13 o m c m m Z` a Cc (X ` — Y = 0 go 0 o — m m m O OW O LC Q7 wOWO+ rOO O 0O L V O 0 t 0 o E2 O OY7 C o41D C O o � E E o C C6 XL CC= 0C ( > ml2ceA� OM — mo oOmZCu GOl O W .. �.- QQmm 9 010aw YM- E00a. a. n. W00 0U C C Indicator of low adult literacy level: educational attainment % of population with less than High School Area Diploma(or Equivelent) Rank Kensington n/a n/a Brentwood 27.4% 5 San Pablo 26.5% 5 Pittsburg 25.2% 5 Richmond 23.9% 5 Oakley 21.5% 4 Crockett & Rodeo 21.2% 4 Antioch 19.1% 4 Pinole 14.6% 3 Martinez 13.11% 3 Concord 11.8% 3 Hercules 9.8% 3 El Cerrito 9.0% 3 Pleasant Hill 7.8% 2 Byron & Discovery Bay 7.4% 2 Clayton 6.9%. 2 Walnut Creek 5.7% San Ramon 4.6% Alamo 4.4% Danville 4.3% Lafayette 3.9% Orinda 3.0% Moraga 2.9% Educational Attainment of 25+ age group(counted those with less than HS diploma or equivalent) Source: US Census., 1990 More direct literacy data is available, but it too is based on the 1990 census and does not include all areas. For those areas for which literacy data is available it appeared that educational level is an adequate proxy. 3 o c o "1 C9 r .� � U C � 'et CD C9 O o3 ` O cs O co to P» r fN ^ t0 T~ N O 6C m N4 r N r N N d to O Cc o O I C c Q as E � c O r` co co `t! O ti O t0 tl! O O r to cA d O c^! O m �! cV Q. Co � N M N � t7 O e- ti tQ N c7 to N �7 rte- t0 � O W a vq 1 ) O r CO C'1 �7 C7 �T N N m to N to rl_ co a o t� �t N to tit COo c co ,- a r� N t- r• N c► Gl tD r` v to f` r- N r r- r .- r• e- M N to N N Ln o is w cc a U 7 W iii v > w RS O rU J 'Cr C Q L t7 O to rn co N r7 f` h !� m to et to N O N to tom! r to M r'. T- o i O O c� to CD r� t! N Co TT N N - o N 0 t qq M to to 0 O C � r M co cn to Cr-C r- C1 tp O �3 J N C to N CO rN r cf r . r- r- e- r- ti r Ao O U � � '� Q HCl iIj I (C m Q ttS U i U a _ St C C tU p L1 cy a a) � N � C p ti E � L t C �. y d C to to } C C o � at, aY = E °' a tum saHEE Eo p , V U > d U m tv- m x C o N m - a C C O c0 d ¢t C S: tU Ut4< < m M U (.) 0 0 w Z Y � do of E: E: R (! cn 3: Indicator of Community Norms. Juveniles on Probation Juvenile Probationers Place per 1000 Residents Rate Richmond 9.40 5 San Pablo 8.12 5 Pittsburg 7.77 5 Crockett & Rodeo 7.56 5 Antioch 5.93 4 Brentwood 5.72 4 Pinole 4.35 4 Oakley 3.92 4 Martinez 3.66 3 Hercules 3.40 3 Concord 2.92 3 Byron & Discovery Bay 2.92 3 Pleasant Hill 2.23 2 Clayton 1.89 2 EI Cerrito 1.67 2 San Ramon 1.45 2 Lafayette 1.31 1 Walnut Creek 1.30 1 Danville 1.17 1 Moraga 0.86 1 Alamo 0.45 1 Orinda 0.36 1 Kensington n/a n/a Source: Contra Costa County Probation Department Information was provided by zip code Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 85 III. LOCAL JUVENILE JUSTICE ACTION STRATEGIES A. SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING SERVICES Through the ongoing and inclusive planning and implementation processes discussed previously, Contra Costa County has built successful programs that directly respond to.a variety of needs. Presently, one of the County's most pressing needs is to sustain those programs which have proven to be producing positive results for participating youth, families and the community at- large. Specifically, the County is focused on maintaining funding for the High School Challenge Teams and SafeFutures programs, the grants for which are scheduled to conclude within the 2001-02 fiscal year. Its CPA 2000 application makes continuation of these programs a high priority and their loss would severely weaken the County's Continuum of Care. The County also considers it a priority to further enhance services to strengthen its Continuum of Care. In short, the overriding theme of the County's CPA 2000 application is to sustain successful services and enhance those that prevent or reduce delinquency and support youth and families. B. LEVERAGING FUNDS As part of its overall juvenile justice strategy, the County continues its commitment to leverage funds. Leveraging funds allows the County to provide more integrated services that respond to the.multiple needs of clients and their families. A goal of the juvenile justice strategy is to blend funding streams to the greatest extent possible so as to facilitate service delivery, reduce duplicative efforts and maximize the effect of each dollar. C. EXPANDING SERVICES WITHIN COMMUNITIES An additional need involves continuing the effort of bringing services to communities, rather than centralizing them at the County Probation Office. The County's High School Challenge Teams represents one example of localizing services. As previously discussed, the High School Challenge Teams involve outstationing probation officers at various high schools to provide supervision and services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth. Evaluations have shown the program produces numerous positive effects, including reductions in truancy and higher levels of school involvement. Through review of its implementation, the need to provide earlier interventions has emerged. Reaching youth at an even earlier age will provide more opportunities for positive life outcomes as well as for reduced demand on the justice system. Therefore, the County proposes to use a portion of its CPA 2000 funding to adapt the High School Challenge Team model to middle schools in several communities. The proposed Community Probation Program represents another example of continuing the focus on bringing services to the community. Under this model, the strengths of family, school and the community are maximized when designing approaches to solving problems. Probation officers housed at local police stations can create and facilitate interventions within the youth's own community which significantly involve family and other community resources. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 86 D. CONTINUING EMPHASIS ON COLLABORATION Contra Costa County has long recognized that clients in their juvenile justice system often have multiple needs. The County has a rich history of collaboration with partner agencies in working to assure that the full service needs of the youth are addressed. This kind of collaboration takes time as the partners have had to build trust, learn each discipline's language and identify effective strategies for success. They have also had to work toward ongoing communication to ensure stability. Though they are labor-intensive, Contra Costa County is committed to such collaboration and recognizes that it is critical to maintaining a strong Continuum of Care. This emphasis on partnership is clearly reflected in all of the programs proposed for CPA 2000 funding. The Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program, for example, utilizes a multi-disciplinary team approach to provide supervision and intervention services for those families with children in the home where an adult is on.probation for a substance abuse related offense. Implementation will require a close working relationship with the County Welfare Department, County Alcohol and Drug Department, County Mental Health Department and other community partners. E. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME MEASURES TO DETERMINE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LOCAL JUVENILE JUSTICE ACTION STRATEGIES The following section lists specific programs and objectives for each. In addition, Contra Costa County will assess.our success in meeting these general goals for sustaining programs, building community linkages and interagency collaboration and increased leveraging of funding. These general goals are not, by and large, amenable to statistical or quantitative measures. Rather, process evaluation will collect the following information, designed to assess the degree to which system change goals have been met. • Interviews with officials will assess support for new relationships. • Budget analysis will identify changing funding arrangements, including leveraging of funds. • Review of written documents—policies and procedures, meeting minutes, etc.—will provide evidence of the institutionalization of new or strengthened interagency arrangements. • In addition, Contra Costa County will collect data, both countywide and for each funded program, on the legislatively mandated measures. The baseline for these measures will be year 2000 data regarding total numbers and rates figured as indicated below: New arrests (Goal: reduce. Rate: per 100,000 population) • Successful completion of probation (Goal: increase. Rate: per total probation adjudicated caseload) • Completion of restitution to victims (Goal: increase. Rate: per cases with victim restitution conditions) Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 87 • Completion of restitution to Restitution funds (Goal: increase, Rate: per cases with restitution fund conditions.) • Completion of Court-ordered community service (Goal: increase. Rate: per cases with court-ordered community service) • New Detentions (Goal: reduce. Rate: per 100,000 population) Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 88 IV. PROPOSED PROGRAMS A. Sustain High School Challenge Team Program Program Coals Initiated with Challenge I funding, the High School Challenge Team Program focuses on placing probation officers in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and specified services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth experiencing problems ranging from truancy to major criminal offenses. Among other outcomes, the program seeks to reduce delinquent offenses; provide for higher rates of successful completion of probation and restitution requirements; improve participating students' school attendance and performance and enhance overall school safety. Collaboration and Integration with Service Partners A collaboration among schools, probation and police officers, the program employs a variety of preventive strategies designed to keep youth from entering or re-entering the formal juvenile justice system. These strategies include the utilization of police diversion, student courts and volunteer mediation. Currently operating in 8 schools in targeted areas of the County, the program's probation officers carry reduced caseloads averaging between twenty-five and thirty- five wards to allow for intensive interaction with youth. It is not unusual for a typical probation officer caseload to exceed seventy wards in the general supervision arena. This program offers significantly greater interaction due to its smaller youth to officer ratio. Basis of Program Effectiveness—Challenge 1 Program Evaluation An in-depth evaluation performed at.four of the participating schools, pursuant to Challenge I, found that the interventions and specialized referrals coordinated by the on-site probation officers resulted in numerous positive outcomes. For example, the evaluation found that program participants became more attached to their school communities. This attachment, in turn, leads to more opportunities for pro-social development and productive behavior patterns. Additionally, the evaluation showed that the program produces reductions in truancy, offending behavior and the seriousness of offenses on occasions where youth do re-offend. As a result, the program generates a reduction in law enforcement costs and damage to crime victims. During the intervention period, participating youth were also more successful in completing probation requirements. Another significant program outcome has been the development of new and collaborative relationships among probation officers, school administrators and staff members, law enforcement officials, mental health service providers and social service providers. Many school personnel, for example, stated that having a probation officer on campus has improved overall school safety and has also helped the school staff identify those students facing problems, including those in trouble with alcohol and other substance abuse or gang activity. By physically locating on high school campuses and working closely with partner agencies to secure needed services, the evaluation noted, probation officers created new roles for themselves Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 89 and became part of the school community. This close working relationship led to a better understanding of each partner's perspective and, more importantly, improved service delivery for youth. Finally, the evaluation showed that having a probation officer on campus changed the way youth view the Probation Department. The program design affords probation officers the opportunity to see their wards and other students on a day-to-day basis, immersed in their community of school. The evaluation found that the youth no longer had to go out of their way (i.e. take a trip to the probation office) to meet with their officer. In many cases, this accessibility led to youth relying on their probation officer as an informal counselor. Some even called for their officer to serve as an advocate and provide assistance in speaking with administrators when the youth were called into the school office for disciplinary action. Additionally, the evaluation noted that the presence of a probation officer on campus served as a deterrent to inappropriate behavior. Budget and Timeframe The current funding source for the High School Challenge Teams will terminate June 30, 2001. Given the positive outcomes achieved by the program, the County proposes to use $525,643 of its CPA 2000 dollars to allow the program to continue uninterrupted during the 2001-02 fiscal year. Overall program costs will total $876,071, with a cost per treatment client of$3,965. The County projects the program will receive $350,428 in reimbursements from Title IV-E. Funding will be used to continue the services and associated costs for one supervisor, 9 deputy probation officers and one clerk. Identification of Specific Objectives and Outcome Measures and their Relation to Program Goals Because this program is tied to an expansion to middle schools, the evaluation for both high schools and middle schools will be similar. The goats and evaluation are therefore discussed in Table 4, which follos. B. Sustain SafeFutures Program Program Goals and Collaboration and Integration with Service Partners Funded by a federal grant that is scheduled to conclude September 30, 2001, the SafeFutures Program contains a number of approaches to enhance the County's juvenile justice Continuum of Care. These approaches include intensive aftercare for youth leaving the Boys Ranch; the Summit Center that provides specialized mental health treatment services; the Gang Core Team in which a collaboration of community organizations, probation, employment agencies, schools and police provide team case management to active gang members returning to the West County from the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility; and the Volunteers in Probation program in which more than 70 volunteers work with minors as mentors. CPA funding will allow the County to sustain these programs currently funded by the SafeFutures grant without interruption and also provide for enhancements in the ranch aftercare program, including expansion of the supervision period from 45 to 60 days. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 90 Basis of Program Effectiveness—Evaluation of SafeFutures Ranch Aftercare Program The aftercare program provides for continuity of care after release from the Boys Ranch. Deputy probation officers provide intensive supervision for at least 45 days, assisting youth with their readjustment to the community and school. One of the aftercare officers specializes in gang- related cases in the West End of the County. The aftercare program seeks to provide supervision and support during the particularly vulnerable period when youth are moving from the ordered and controlled environment of the ranch back to their home communities. Contra Costa County recognizes that given the socially embedded nature ofjuvenile criminal behavior and gang-related activities, youth need support in this transition back to their community. The primary goal of the aftercare program is to reduce juvenile offenses and arrests among youth and/or reduce the seriousness of these offenses by supporting the transition. An in-depth evaluation of the SafeFutures programs found that after receiving aftercare services, those youth who did re-offend committed less serious offenses. During the 45 day supervision period, only 19% of program clients were charged with new law violations and more than 70% of these offenses were misdemeanors, with property misdemeanors being the most common. This outcome shows that the program's goal of reducing the number and severity of offenses was achieved. The evaluation further found that increased supervision and care leads to lower recidivism rates. This outcome speaks to the concept that expanding the period of aftercare services from 45 to 60 days following release may solidify the reduction in recidivism. Summit Center Youth placed in the Summit Center are serious offenders or chronic placement failures with mental and emotional disorders requiring intensive services and a secure environment. Probation, Mental Health, and the County Office of Education jointly operate the Summit Center. An evaluation of the Summit Center program found that half of its graduates did not commit a post-release offense. Consistent with this data, recidivism rates from Summit graduates are around 50 percent. It is important to note that youth enrolled in this program are high-risk and have a history of multiple offenses, with 91.5% having committed one or more felonies prior to their placement and over half(55%) having committed three or more felonies. Further, the evaluation showed that despite initial intake test scores that demonstrated high levels of functional impairment, participants experienced dramatic improvements in functioning from intake to discharge, particularly in performance in school, at home, and in the community, as well as with substance abuse. Finally, the program experiences a very low attrition rate, with most participants completing the program successfully. Volunteers in Probation The primary goal of the Volunteers in Probation program is to provide at-risk youth with a positive adult role model who can keep to address the youth's special needs. An evaluation acknowledged program challenges, including the reluctance of some young people to become Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 91 involved or stay involved. Many of these youth have been disappointed by adult role models throughout their lives and are reluctant to believe their mentor will be around on a consistent basis. An evaluation of this program noted that addressing its impact by recidivism rates would be simplistic and would ignore the complex problems faced by program participants. The evaluation asserts that one significant measure of program success is the desire of the mentee to continue the relationship with the mentor. Some youth reported that they re-offended because they were afraid their relationship with their mentor would terminate when their probation period ended. Looking at data available for twelve mentees, the evaluation found that at least three relationships had continued past the probation period. Bud,et and Timeframe In addition to sustaining the Summit Center Program and the deputy probation officer position for the Volunteers in Probation Program during the 2001-02 fiscal year, CPA funding will allow the County to maintain two existing deputy probation officer positions in the aftercare program whose funding is scheduled to terminate September 30, 2001. It will also provide for the addition of two new deputy probation officers for aftercare services, starting May 1, 2001. Additionally, the County plans to expand the aftercare component from 45 to 60 days and focus on identified specialized caseloads, offering such services as preparation for emancipation. Overall funding for the SafeFutures component totals $600,458, with $476,858 coming from CPA 200 funds. The remaining amount, $123,600, will come from Title IV-E reimbursements. Identification of Specific Objectives and Outcome Measures and their Relation to Pro-ram Goals Ranch Aftercare. This program seeks to assist incarcerated youth in making a successful transition to more productive lives when they return to the community. Heightened supervision, to prevent a return to delinquent activities, contributes to a successful transition. In addition, the program provides assistance in returning to school (and/or to vocational training or employment) and in readjustment(by youth and caregivers) in the family setting. Objectives for evaluation thus address recidivism, educational/vocational participation, and family adjustment. Specific objectives and evaluation measures are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Ranch Aftercare Outcome Coal Outcome Measure Camparison Nature of (Baseline)* Comparison* New arrests Reduction in number of %program participants %of program Pre-Post program participants with with new arrest for up participants with new program for new arrests to one year following arrest during year prior participants ranch release to incarceration Arrest type Reduction in severity of %program participants %of program Pre-Post arrests(reduction in felony with felony, participants with arrests program for arrests) misdemeanor,and of various types during participants probation violation year prior to arrests during year incarceration following ranch release Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 92 New sustained Reduction in rate of program Rate(average number Rate(average number Pre-Post petitions participants with new per program per program program for sustained petitions participant)of new participant)of sustained participants sustained petitions petitions during year during year following prior to incarceration ranch release Sustained Reduction in rate of sustained Rate(average number Rate(average number Pre-Post petition type felony petitions per program per program program for participant)of new participant)of sustained participants sustained felony felony petitions during petitions during year year prior to following ranch release incarceration Return to Reduction in the rate of Rate(average number Rate(average number Pre-Post custody returns to custody per program per program program for participant)of days in participant)of days in participants returns to custody returns to custody during year following during year prior to ranch release incarceration Education Decrease in number of school Number of days absent Number of days absent Pre-post attendance days absent from school or from school in year program for educational setting for prior to incarceration, participants participants without for participants without without GED or HS diploma GED or HS diploma GED(HS diploma Employment Increase in employment %youth (not in school) %of youth(not in Pre-Post readiness readiness in employment school) in employment program for programs and/or jobs programs and/or jabs participants. six months after ranch prior to incarceration release Stable living Improvement in living %youth in stable living %youth in stable living Pre-post situation situation(measured by situation at end of 60 situation prior to program for Probation assessment of day supervision period incarceration participants. home setting) *For outcomes related to recidivism,the County will attempt to establish baseline recidivism rates(or expectations) based on a historical sample of youth leaving the ranch. If it proves feasible to develop a reasonably valid baseline, the outcome for program participants will also be compared with historical baseline recidivism rates. Summit Center. The purpose of the Summit Center is to assist troubled, delinquent youth toward a more satisfactory, less troubled life. There are several dimensions to this. Perhaps the most significant is to overcome the emotional difficulties which impair the youths' functioning. It is thought that reduction of emotional impairments will be associated with improvements in other domains of the youths' lives: family functioning, educational performance, reduced substance abuse and reduced delinquency. Specific objectives regarding these domains, along with a summary of evaluation approach, are contained in Table 2. Table 2: Summit Center Outcome Goal Outcome Measure Comparison Nature of (Baseline) Comparison Personal and Improve the level of personal Average score on scales Average score on scales Pre-Post for social and social functioning, as by program participants by program participants program functioning measured by Auchenbach and at program exit at program entry participants Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 93 other scales (residential phase) Education Increase educational level by Average grade level Average grade level Pre-Post for credits at least one grade level achievement by achievement by program program participants at program participants at participants program exit program admission (residential phase) Out-of-home Reduce the number of out-of- Average number of new a. Average number of a. Pre-post for placements home placements placements per program placements and program participant during year placement changes per participants following exit from participant during year b. Participants residential phase prior to program entry compared with (or associated youth in other incarceration) high level out- b. Average number of of-home placements/replacement placements. s per youth in other, Level 12-14 placements,during the program period New offenses Reduction in rate of new Rate of new felony, Rate of new offenses Pre-post offenses misdemeanor,and (by program program for probation violation participants per day) program offenses (by program during time at liberty participants participants per day) for year prior to entry during program into residential phase participation period and during time at liberty for year following exit from residential phase New sustained Reduction in rate of new Rate of new felony, Rate of new sustained Pre-post petitions sustained petitions misdemeanor, and petitions(by program program for probation violation participants per day) program sustained petitions(by during time at liberty participants program participants for year prior to entry per day)during into residential phase program participation period and during time at liberty for year following exit from residential phase Volunteers in Probation. Volunteers in Probation has dual goals: to provide mentors and other caring adults for individual youth on probation (and their families), and to provide additional resources for and community involvement with the Probation Department. Objectives related to both client service and organizational resource dimensions will be the basis for the VIP evaluation. Details about the objectives and pertinent measures are contained in Table 3. Table 3: Volunteers in Probation Outcome Goal Outcome Measure Comparison Nature of (Baseline) Comparison Volunteer Equal or exceed the year Volunteers and Year 2000 volunteers Year to year involvement 2000 number of adult volunteer hours in a and volunteer hours level of effort Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 94 volunteers and volunteer twelve-month period hours during 2001/1002. Duration of Sustain mentoring matches Average length of time Target of one year Actual mentoring for period of at least one year matches continue duration matches compared with target of one year New offenses Reduction in rate(average Rate of new felony, Rate of new offenses Pre-post (mentoring) number per participant)of misdemeanor, and during year prior to program for new offenses(mentored probation violation program entry(or mentored youths) offenses during associated youths program participation incarceration) and for six months following termination of mentoring match New sustained Reduction in rate(average Rate of new felony, Rate of new sustained Pre-post petitions number per participant)of misdemeanor, and petitions during year program for (mentoring) new sustained petitions probation violation prior to program entry mentored (mentored youths) sustained petitions (or associated youths during program incarceration) participation and for six months following termination of mentoring match Caregiver Maintain high rates of Average caregiver Not applicable Not applicable satisfaction satisfaction by caregivers of satisfaction score (mentoring) mentored youth,as measured by survey instruments C. Expand the High School Challenge Team Program to Middle Schools As previously discussed, Contra Costa County utilized its Challenge I grant to establish High School Challenge Teams. Under this program, probation officers are placed in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and specified services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth experiencing problems ranging from truancy to major criminal offenses. Program goals include reducing delinquent offenses; providing for higher rates of successful completion of probation and restitution requirements; improving participating students' school attendance and performance and enhancing overall school safety. Basis of Program Effectiveness— Challenge I Evaluation As discussed in detail above, evaluations of the high school-based model show that the program produces numerous positive outcomes for participants, including reductions in truancy, delinquent behavior and the seriousness of offenses for those youth who do re-offend. Given these successful results for high school-age youth, the County proposes to utilize a portion of its CPA funding to replicate this program in selected middle schools. Program Goals Numerous research studies have shown that the middle school years are crucial to pro-social development. An expansion of the High School Challenge Team concept to middle schools will allow for earlier interventions with juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth. It is anticipated Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 95 that such preventive action will improve life outcomes for participating youth and also reduce demand on the justice system in the out-years. The expansion of this school-probation partnership to middle schools will also strengthen the County's Continuum of Care and enhance early intervention in particular. Collaboration and Integration with Service Partners The County will work in close collaboration with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to identify middle schools receptive to placing a probation officer on-site. As with the High School Challenge Team Program, an ongoing partnership with schools, mental health, social service and other partner agencies will be critically important. Budget and Timeframe The county proposes to target$613,250 in CPA funding for the services and other associated costs for one supervisor, nine deputy probation officers and one clerk to operate the Middle School Challenge Teams, beginning May 1, 2001. Overall, the program will cost a total of $1,022,083. In addition to CPA funding, the County budget assumes receipt of$408,833 in Title IV-E revenue. Identification of Specific Objectives and Outcome Measures and their Relation to Program Goals A proposed AB 1913 project is an expansion of the Challenge Grant I High School Challenge Teams into several local area middle schools. This move was suggested in part by the research finding that Campus DPOs while effective in preventing probation clients from cutting classes once at school, the project did not have much success in getting clients to come to school. This project will explore whether the placement of deputy probation officers on middle and high school campuses will result in probation clients attending school more regularly. The objectives of the program component include positive impacts on recidivism (a reduction in the number of arrests, the making of less serious arrest types and the severity of those arrests, the number of sustained petitions, the making of less serious sustained petition types and the severity of those sustained petitions), school attendance (number of days missed from school, number of days with one or more class cuts), school behavior(number of suspensions from school, number of expulsions from school), and academic performance (number of school units earned). Another objective is to positively change the school staff's attitudes regarding school safety. Table 4 provides a detailed matrix of objectives and evaluation techniques. Table 4: Middle School Challenge Team Program Outcome Goal Outcome Measure Comparison Nature of (Baseline) Comparison New Arrests Reduction in Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Clients with New ,Arrests Participants with New Participants with New Program Arrest During Program Arrest During 6 Months Participants Immediately Prior to Program Entry Arrest Type Reduction in the Severity of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Arrests Participants with Participants with Program ' Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 96 Arrests of Various Arrests of Various Participants Types(Felonies, Types(Felonies, Misdemeanors, Misdemeanors, Probation Violations) Probation Violations) 6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Arrest Severity Reduction in the Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Arrests for Violent Offenses Participants with Participants with Program Arrests of Various Arrests of Various Participants Types(Violent, Types(Violent, Property, Drug,and so Property,Drug,and so on) on)6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry New Sustained Reduction in Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Petitions Clients with New Sustained Participants with New Participants with New Program Petitions Sustained Petitions Sustained Petitions Participants During Program During 6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Sustained Reduction in the Severity of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Petition Type Sustained Petitions Participants with Participants with Program Sustained Petitions of Sustained Petitions of Participants Various Types Various Types (Felonies, (Felonies, Misdemeanors, Misdemeanors, Probation Violations) Probation Violations) 6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Sustained Reduction in the Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Petition Sustained Petitions for Participants with Participants with Program Severity Violent Offenses Sustained Petitions of Sustained Petitions of Participants Various Types(Violent, Various Types(Violent, Property, Drug,and so Property, Drug, and so on) on)6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Number of Reduction in the number of Mean number of Days Mean Number of Days Pre-Post for Days Missed days missed from school Missed from School Missed from School 6 Program from School School Months Participants Immediately Prior to Program Entry Number of Reduction in the Number of Mean number of Partial Mean Number of Pre-Post for Partial Days Partial Days Missed From Days Missed from Partial Days Missed Program Missed from School School from School 6 School Participants School Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Number of Reduction in the Number of %of Clients with One %of Clients with One Pre-Post for Suspensions Suspensions From School or More Suspensions or More Suspensions Program from School from School from School 6 School Participants Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Number of Reduction in the Number of %of Clients with One %of Clients with One Pre-Post for Expulsions Expulsions From School or More Expulsions or More Expulsions Program from School from School from School 6 School Participants Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 97 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Number of Maintenance or Increase in %of Clients Earning %of Clients Earning Pre-Post for School Units the Number of School Units the Nonnal and the Normal and Program Earned Earned Expected Number of Expected Number of Participants School Units School Units Two Quarters Immediately Prior to Program Entry School Staff Increase in Positive °%of Employees %of Employees Pre-Post for Attitudes Estimations of Campus Estimating Their Estimating Their Program Regarding Safety by School Employees School Community as School Community as Schools Campus Safety "Safe" "Safe"at Program Startup D. Create a Community Probation Program Program Goals and Collaboration and Integration with Service Partners Modeled after a similar program that Alameda County established under Challenge I, Contra Costa County's Community Probation Program will use CPA funding to out-station 8-10 probation officers in various police agencies throughout the county to focus on high-risk youth, at-risk youth and chronic offenders. Exact locations will be determined by working with the various police chiefs countywide to identify areas of greatest need. Starting May 1, 2001, the out-stationed probation officers will work non-traditional hours and collaborate with police agencies, schools and community based organizations to help prevent offending behavior. The program will strive to provide youth with the necessary tools to successfully complete probation requirements and avoid further formal involvement with the justice system. The Community Probation model, as exemplified in Alameda County, involves the use of multi- disciplinary teams, depending heavily upon collaboration between police and probation officers, schools, recreation departments and other community based organizations. The model also emphasizes the importance of maximizing the strengths of family, school and community when designing approaches for solving problems. Physically locating probation officers in the community will facilitate this process. Fee-For-Service Relationship with Partner Service Providers To more effectively respond to the true needs of clients, Contra Costa will target$300,000 of the CPA funds designated for the Community Probation Program toward a new approach to accessing services. Under this new focus, the county will purchase services on an as-needed basis, rather than entering into blanket contracts with various non-profit entities. In most disciplines, the current widespread practice is for public agencies to enter into contractual arrangements with a limited number of community-based-organizations. When youth are in need of services, these public agencies work to "fit" these needs into the existing contractual arrangements. The goal of purchasing services on-demand is to shift this focus to effectively address the service needs of youth on an individualized basis. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 98 After reviewing a client's needs, the county will purchase services that respond to the identified needs. Examples of services that could be purchased on this fee-for-service basis include stipends for youth to receive computer training, mental health services, parenting skills classes or anger management classes. This new approach will require close collaboration with the numerous non-profit organizations in the county as well as a keen awareness of the array of services currently available countywide. The county will work with partner agencies to develop a menu of available services as well as projected costs. Basis of Program Effectiveness—Alameda County Challenge I Evaluation An evaluation of the Alameda County program found that the interventions produced numerous successful results. Specifically, program participants experienced a higher rate of completion of probation, restitution and court-ordered work program or community service. During the follow- up period, program participants experienced fewer arrests resulting in referrals to probation. The evaluation asserts that smaller caseloads, enhanced supervision and the provision of wraparound services all contributed to these successful results. The Alameda County program has also led to the development of better collaboration with law enforcement agencies. This partnership with law enforcement has proven effective in enforcing court-ordered curfews and performing room searches. More importantly, it has led to improved problem solving. As a result of this program, deputy probation officers now enjoy higher visibility within the community. The probation officers, in fact, have become a part of the community, attending high school baseball games, teen talk groups and other community events. This community involvement serves as a demonstration of their care and commitment and also as a foundation for improved communication and trust between the probation officer and youth and their families. This bond facilitates problem solving and successful outcomes. Budget and Timeline Total program funding for Contra Costa County's Community Probation effort is $1,258,039, with $886,823 coming from CPA 2000 funding and the remaining $371,216 from Title IV-E revenues. Included in this total is the $300,000 in CPA funding targeted for the fee-for-service purchases discussed above. The budget assumes a May 1, 2001 start-date and will purchase the services and associated costs for eight deputy probation officers, one supervisor and one clerk. Identification of Specifec Objectives and Outcome Measures and their Relation to Program Goals A project creation of this proposal is the development of a Community Probation Program in Contra Costa County. The program will focus on "8 percent" high-risk probation clients. The objectives of the program component include positive impacts on recidivism (a reduction in the number of arrests, the making of less serious arrest types and the severity of those arrests, the number of sustained petitions, the making of less serious sustained petition types and the severity of those sustained petitions), school enrollment (number of client remaining enrolled in school), rates of detention (number of clients detained in the Juvenile Hall, Ranch, or California Youth Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 99 Authority), and arrest frequency (number of days between arrests). Additionally, we seek to positively impact local law enforcement officers working relationship with deputy probation officers and parents'/caregivers' satisfaction with probation supervision. Details of program objectives and evaluation measures are contained in Table 5. Table 5: Community Probation New Arrests Reduction in Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Clients with New Arrests Participants with New Participants with New Program Arrest During Program Arrest During 6 Months Participants Immediately Prior to Program Entry Arrest Type Reduction in the Severity of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Arrests Participants with Participants with Program Arrests of Various Arrests of Various Participants Types(Felonies, Types(Felonies, Misdemeanors, Misdemeanors, Probation Violations) Probation Violations) 6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Arrest Severity Reduction in the Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Arrests for Violent Offenses Participants with Participants with Program Arrests of Various Arrests of Various Participants Types(Violent, Types(Violent, Property, Drug,and so Property, Drug,and so on) on)6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry New Sustained Reduction in Number of %of Program %.of Program Pre-Post for Petitions Clients with New Sustained Participants with New Participants with New Program Petitions Sustained Petitions Sustained Petitions Participants During Program During 6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Sustained Reduction in the Severity of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Petition Type Sustained Petitions Participants with Participants with Program Sustained Petitions.of Sustained Petitions of Participants Various Types Various Types (Felonies, (Felonies, Misdemeanors, Misdemeanors, Probation Violations, Probation Violations, and so on) and so on) 6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Sustained Reduction in the Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Petition Sustained Petitions for Participants with Participants with Program Severity Violent Offenses Sustained Petitions of Sustained Petitions of Participants Various Types(Violent, Various Types(Violent, Property, Drug,and so Property, Drug, and so on) on)6 Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry School Increase in the Number of %of Program %of Pro-ram Pre-Post for Enrollment Clients Enrolled in School Participants Enrolled in I Participants Enrolled in Program �. Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 100 a School a School 6 Months Participants Immediately Prior to Program Entry Detention in a Decrease in the Number of %of Program %of Program Pre-Post for Facility Clients Detained at the Participants Detained in Participants Detained in Program (Juvenile Hall, Juvenile Hall,the Ranch,or a Facility a Facility 6 Months Participants Ranch,or California Youth Authority Immediately Prior to California Program Entry Youth Authority) Time Between Increase the Period Between Mean Number of Days Mean Number of Days Pre-Post for Arrests Arrests for New Law Between Arrests for Between Arrests for Program Violations New Law Violations New Law Violations 6 Participants Months Immediately Prior to Program Entry Law Increase in Positive %of Police Officers %of Police Officers Pre-Post for Enforcement Estimations of the Estimating the Estimating the Law Officers Officers' Relationship between Police Relationship as Positive Relationship as Positive Attitudes Officers and Juvenile Deputy at Program Startup Regarding the Probation Officers Working Relationship with Juvenile Probation Parents'/Care; Increase in Positive %of Parents/Caregivers %of Parents/Caregivers Pre-Post for ivers' Estimations of the Estimating the Estimating the Parents/Caregi Attitudes Effectiveness of Community Effectiveness as Effectiveness as vers Regarding the Probation by Clients' Positive Positive at Program Effectiveness Parents/Caregivers Startup of Community Probation E. Create a Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program Pro-ram Goals It is clear that the passage of Proposition 36 will greatly impact county probation departments. To offset some of the demands of Proposition 36, Contra Costa County proposes to use a portion of its CPA funds to establish the Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program. This program, which is slated to begin May 1, 2001, will serve to provide supervision and intervention services for those families with children in the home where an adult is on probation for a substance abuse related offense. The overall goal of the program is to reduce the risk to and need for out-of-home placements for children whose risks are heightened by their parent's involvement in the justice system and with substance abuse. Collaboration and Inte-ration with Service Partners In strong collaboration with the County Welfare Department, County Alcohol and Drug Department, County Mental Health Department and other partners, the program will utilize a multi-disciplinary team approach to provide families with a variety of intervention and support services designed to strengthen families and address substance abuse issues. Such services could include family counseling,job skills training, alcohol and drug treatment services, conflict resolution training, parenting skills classes and after school recreation programs. t Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 101 Basis of Program Effectiveness–Stanislaus County Challenge II Evaluation Stanislaus County utilized Challenge II funding to establish a similar program, called the Family Oriented Community Utilization System (FOCUS). In that county, children of adult probationers receive a needs assessment First and then services based upon the results of that assessment. The program uses coordinated family case management to meet the needs of all family members. Program goals include reducing the number of minors from participating families entering the justice system, the incidence of domestic violence in the home and either the number of out-of-home placements for children or, if out-of-home placement is required, the early identification of that need to provide greater protection to the minor. Budget and Timeline The County proposes to dedicate $550,931 in CPA funding to initiate this program. This amount represents the total program cost and will provide for the purchase of services for five deputy probation officers and .56 probation supervisor, beginning May 1, 2001. Identification of Specific Objectives and Outcome iWeasures and their Relation to Program Goals Objectives for this program include reduction of substance abuse by parents and of the consequences of that—domestic violence, child abuse, and removal of minors from the home. An additional objective is for longer-term reductions in problem behaviors by the children, such . as school failure and delinquency. The longer-term outcomes are beyond the scope and timetable of the current funding and evaluation, although the County will seek additional funds to track the youth for a longer period. Assessment of outcomes for this program is also complicated by the lack of baseline data. Therefore, the evaluation design will include random assignment of cases to control and treatment groups. A listing of specific objectives and assessment plans is contained in Table 6. Table 6: Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program Outcome Goal Outcome Measure Comparison Nature of Comparison Parental drug Reduce parental drug use Rate (as % total tests Rate of"dirty tests" in a Randomly use and as % tested clients) randomly selected selected of "dirty tests" by control group treatment and parents participating I control groups Child abuse Reduce incidence of child Rate (as average N per Rate of child abuse or Randomly abuse family per time period) neglect incidents in selected of child abuse or randomly selected treatment and neglect incidents in control group control groups participating families Domestic Reduce incidence of domestic Rate (as average N per Rate of domestic Randomly Violence violence' family per time period) violence incidents in selected of domestic violence randomly selected treatment and incidents in control group control groups participating families Removal from Reduce number of incidents Rate (as average N per Rate of incidents of Randomly home in which children must be family per time period) removal of child in selected removed from home of incidents of removal randomly selected treatment and of child in participating control group control groups ti i' Contra Costa County Local Action Plan IO2 families Removal from Reduce number of days spent Total number, and Total number, and Randomly home by children in foster care, average per child, of average per child, of selected shelter, and other non-family days spent by children days spent by children treatment and or kinship care in non-familial care in non-familial care control groups because of problems in because of problems in the family, among the family, among participating families. randomly selected control families. New Arrests, Reduce number of new Total number, and Total number, and Randomly parents arrests of parents average per family, of average per family, of selected new arrests of parents new arrests of parents treatment and or caregivers, . during or caregivers in control groups program participation in randomly selected participating families. control families New Reduce number of new Total . number, and Total number, and Randomly incarceration incarcerations if parents average per family, of average per family, of selected new incarcerations new incarcerations treatment and during program during program control groups participation, of parents participation, of parents or caregivers in or caregivers in participating families. randomly selected control families. School Increase number of days of Average number of Average number of Randomly attendance school attendance by children school attendance days school attendance days selected (per time period) by (per time period) by treatment and school-aged children in school-aged children in control groups participating families. control families. New arrests, Reduce number of new ' Average number of new Average number of new Randomly juveniles arrests of children arrests(per time period) arrests (per time period) selected of children in of children in control treatment and participating families families control groups F. Other Budgetary Items In addition to the specific programmatic components discussed above, the County's proposed budget for its CPA 2000 funds includes $114,000 for additional rent and occupancy costs; $165,000 to perform program evaluations; $129,788 ($87,328 in CPA funding and $42,459 from Title IV-E revenue) for a probation manager to oversee the 43 additional positions and $16,427 for administrative overhead. With regard to the rent and occupancy line-item, the County notes that the initiation of new programs demands new staff and support personnel and that these workers must be housed somewhere. At this time, Contra Costa County is experiencing a major shortage of physical space to locate staff. This funding will allow the County to secure sufficient office space to support the staff for these new and ongoing programs. Funding for evaluation will allow the County to continue its commitment to intensive evaluation of its new and ongoing programs and to meet the requirements of data collection and reporting in CPA 2000. Following is detailed information regarding all of the programs proposed for CPA 2000 funding. 103 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION ACT 2000 (AB 1913) PROGRAM COSTS ESTIMATE FY 2000/2001 and FY 2001/2002 Ongoing Start-up Total Revenue Salaries 8 DOT Furniture First Net Employee 8 and Year Title AB 1913 Months Benefits Telecom Equipment Cost IV-E Cost OPERATIONS CURRENTLY FUNDED BY GRANTS CHALLENGE GRANT I: Di @ High Schools: 12 9 Deputy Probation Officer III 716,481 9,000 12 1 Probation Supervisor I 97,813 1,000 12 1 Clerk-Senior Level 50,777 1,000 Services and Supplies Administrative Overhead 865,071 11,000 676,071 (350,428) 525,643 SAFE FUTURES GRANT: DPO's®Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility: 9 2 Deputy Probation Officer III 119,414 1,500 120,914 (48,365) Volunteers in Probation Program: 9 1 Deputy Probation Officer III 59,707 750 60.457 9 Summit Center Mental Health Residential Unit 225,000 179,120 2,250 406,370 (48,365) 358,005 PROPOSED NEW OPERATIONS DPO's®Middle Schools: 14 9 Deputy Probation Officer III 835,895 10.500 18,000 14 1 Probation Supervisor I 114,115 1,167 3,000 14 1 Clerk-Senior Level 59,240 1,167 3,000 1,009,250 12,833 24,000 1,046,083 (418,433) 627,650 Community Probation: Purchase of Services 300,000 Staff: 14 8 Deputy Probation Officer III 743,017 9,333 24,000 14 1 Probation Supervisor 114,115 1,167 3.000 14 1 Clerk-Senior Level 59,240 1,167 3,000 916,372 11,667 30,000 958,039 (371,216) 586,823 Family Intervention in Substance Abuse: 14 5 Deputy Probation Officer III 464,386 5,833 15,000 14 0.56 Probation Supervisor 1 63,397 648 1,667 527,783 6,481 16,667 550,931 550,931 OPO's®Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility: 14 2 Deputy Probation Officer III 185,754 2,333 6,000 194,088 (75,235) 118,853 14 1 Probation Manager 125,621 1,167 3,000 129,788 (42,459) 87,328 Additional Rent 8 Occupancy Costs 112,000 Sub-Total Service Costs 3,267,233 Vacancy factor on above staffing(approx.6.5%) (247,583) Revenue loss due to vacancy 84,466 Evaluation 165,000 Administration 16,427 TOTAL CPA 2000(AB 1913)BUDGET 3,285,543 2/14fo1 Contra Costa County.Local Action Plan 104 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT STAFF COSTS FY 200112002 Department County Fully Direct Clerical Manager Aoministalive Administrative Loaded Step 5 Benefits Cost Supervision Support Support Support Support Cost Salary 035% (Subtotal) 012% (91 16% @1% @ 4% ®7% JULY,AUGUST,SEPTEMBER: Deputy Probation Officer III: Monthly 4,771 1,670 5.441 773 1,031 64 258 451 9,017 3 Months 14,313 5,010 19,323 2.319 3,092 193 7T3 1.353 27,052 OCTOBER THROUGH JUNE: Deputy Probation Officer III: Monthly 4,962 1,737 5,698 804 1,072 67 268 469 9,378 9 Months 44,657 15,630 60,286 7,234 9,648 603 2.411 4220 84,401 TOTAL FY 200012001 COST PER DPO•111 $ 79,609 9,553 12,737 796 3.184 5,573 S 111,452 Probation Supervisor Monthly,1st Quarter 5.862 2.052 7,914 Monthly,3 Quarters 6,096 2,134 8.230 Annual 72.454 25,359 9 97,813 Olen(•Senior Level (Step 7.Benefits®31%) Monthly.IslQuarter 3.136 -972 4,108 Monthly,3 Quarters 3,251 1,011 4.272 Annual 38,761 12.016 f 50,777 Probation Manager Monthly,1 st Quarter 6.453 2.259 8.712 Monthly,3 Quarters 6,711 2.349 9,060 Annual 79,759 27,916 S 107,675 Contra Costa County Local Action Plan 105 G. Development of Coordinated Information Sharing Systems Contra Costa County recognizes that the development of coordinated information sharing systems is an important, but complex, issue. The County continues its commitment to ongoing discussions with partner agencies to look at long-range information sharing needs. However, progress to date has been slowed by concerns relating to legal and technological barriers. Legal constraints are particularly present in the areas of mental health and social services where confidentiality laws can prohibit the release of certain information. The County's ongoing discussions include the identification of strategies by which privileged or confidential information can be shared among team members and ways in which different technology systems and collection processes can be unified. Given these legal and technological constraints, it has been Contra Costa County's experience that close collaboration among partner agencies facilitates the exchange of information. Open lines of communication and regular meetings bring increased opportunities for program partners to discuss a client's progress and problem-solve. In fact, evaluations of a number of Contra Costa County's programs highlighted this information sharing process as a major strength that enhanced the level of services. Evaluations of the High School Challenge Teams and the Gang Core Teams, for example, specifically mentioned that the relationships established between probation officers and partner agencies positively benefited participants and contributed to program success. The County will continue to emphasize collaborative working relationships as a tool to facilitate information sharing in the CPA 2000 programs. It is also important to note that the Probation Department is currently participating on 2 countywide multi-disciplinary teams that are working on ways to identify mechanisms to exchange information, including the development of a memorandum of understanding. Contra Costa County certainly recognizes that a coordinated system of exchanging information benefits clients and enhances overall program operations. The County will maintain its emphasis on close collaboration to facilitate the exchange of information and will also continue its discussions on long-term information sharing needs. Appendix 1 : Juvenile Justice Programs Proposed for Crime Prevention Act 2000 Funding JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR CRIME PREVENTION ACT 2000 FUNDING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROGRAM NANIE TOTAL PROJECTED TOTAL CPA FUNDING COST 1. High School Challenge $876,071.00 $525,643.00 Team Program 2, SafeFutures Program $600,458.00 . $476,858.00 3. Middle School $1,022,083.00 $613,250.00 Challenge Team Program 4. Community Probation $1,258,039.00 $886,823.00 Program 5. Family Intervention in $550,931.00 $550,931.00 Substance Abuse Program CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL Steven Bautista County Probation Officer and Chair, JJCC Chris Adams Community Member David Coleman Public Defender John Cullen Director, Department of Employment and Human Services Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors Shirley Marchetti Executive Director, REACH Project Inc. Ruth Ormsby Child/Adolescent Program Chief, Department of Mental Health Joe Ovick County Superintendent of Schools Warren Rupf Sheriff-Coroner Larry Shaw Chief of Police, City of Brentwood and Representative, Police Chiefs Association Gary Yancey District Attorney Taalia Hasan Executive Director, Youth Service Bureau SECTION 2-JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL ..- .. ....... .-: .. .,. .-:-� .. ._� ... ........�„�....::. M':rte_ 4'•->Y:" ill:: .L.:� ��'!(s ':�: 'Y.I•-',t:_ 'Iti:i'i. - .� ^. ... ._.. .•:�:,....-..� :'i,.:'!: '-X11'.'::" ��.: `n i�-,�3.:... .rt, J_t .v,h{. • ....,... 1w.v.Jan :.:v ,ik.. ...........(_. 1.�.a. c.,. .:...::. v.9r,'•.:i - -'7!- NAME:_ ._._:.. .... . .,..... ,. ,.. ,. ..s._.:,... �;I ,E._- n.[,r'.!.v ..Y.. .r....i. ,m.. ..1.)._. .r ... �- ... .4.ci...s _..•_...:::.tom .?.�✓-.' _ _ _ - 1....-.;.... - :tY ..r.{` tr..- Gary Yancey District Attorney District Attorney Gayle B. Uilkema Chair Board of Supervisors David Coleman Public Defender Public Defender Warren Rupf Sheriff-Coroner Sheriff-Coroner John Cullen Director Employment and Human Services Department Shirley Marchetti Executive Director REACH Project Inc. Larry Shaw Chief of Police City of Brentwood, representing the Police Chiefs Association Joe Ovick County Superintendent of Schools County Superintendent of Schools Chris Adams , Community Member Ruth Ormsby Child/Adolescent Program Chief Mental Health Services Department Taalia Hasan Executive Director Youth Service Bureau SECTION 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Provide an executive summary limited to 10 pages, double spaced (PLANNING ACTIVITIES maximum 3 pages, HISTORY AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY maximum 7 pages, double spaced with a 12-point font) summarizing the key points of the planning activities associated with the development of the COMPREHENSIVE MULTIAGENCY JUVENILE JUSTICE PLAN (CMJJP) and addressing each of the elements set forth in the instructions. In addition to the maximum 10 page executive summary, please 2of4 BOARD CORRECTIONS TELFPIIONE(916) 445-5073 600 BERCUT 1322-5036 9-55814-0185 SCHIFF-CARDENAS CRUNIE PREVENTION ACT OF 2000 COMPREIIENSIVE MULTIAGENCY.JUVENILE JUSTICE PLAN APPLICATIONO, APPROVAL SECTIONI - COUNTYINFORMATION Date: County: CONTRA COSTA Chief Probation Officer/ Chair of Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council: Steven Bautista Department: Probation Address: 50 Douglas Drive, Suite 201 Martinez, California 94553-8500 Telephone #: (925) 313-4180 Facsimile: (925) 313-4191 Plan Coordinator: Dave Grossi, Chief Deputy Probation Officer Department: Probation Address: 50 Douglas Drive, Suite 201 Martinez, California 94553-8500 Telephone #: (925) 313-4199 Facsimile: (925) 31')-4191 1 of 4 SECTION 2–JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL .: .:. .:. .. :• .—x?'.... ,.... ... ..;.. .:...... ,... :...x. ;ciR:�:;:� aha;`� s t, ... .... .. � ........... ..... .. .. _. ..:.. .,. ,..:;: :TITLE..:"' - �:: �:ORGA'NIZ TI0.1V. :�:.';b ="'. .�'- .r-... A: - . ... a ... ..............-..: .. .5 .... . ........ ...... ... `;s, .F.---X e4. Gary Yancy District Attorney District Attorney Donna Gerber Chair Board of Supervisors David Coleman Public Defender Public Defender Warren Rupf Sheriff-Coroner Sheriff-Coroner John Cullen Director Employment and Human Services Department Shirley Marchetti Executive Director REACH Project Inc. Larry Shaw Chief of Police City of Brentwood, representing the Police Chiefs Association Joe Ovick County Superintendent of Schools County Superintendent of Schools Chris Adams Community Member Ruth Ormsby Chi.ld/Adolescent Program Chief Mental Health Services Department SECTION 3—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Provide an executive summary limited to 10 pages, double spaced (PLANNING ACTIVITIES maximum 3 pages, HISTORY AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY maximum 7 pages, double spaced with a 12-point font) summarizing the key points of the planning activities associated with the development of the COMPREHENSIVE MULTIAGENCY JUVENILE JUSTICE PLAN (CMJJP) and addressing each of the elements set forth in the instructions. In addition to the maximum 10 page executive summary, please 2 of 4 f I provide a one page (double spaced with 12-point font) description of each of the programs you have prioritized for CPA 2000 funding in your CMJJP. 3 of 4 f SECTION 4— TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE On the attached Technical Compliance Response Matrix please provide the section(s) and page number(s) in your Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan that responds to items identified in Section 4, Items 1-3 of the Instructions for Completing the Application for Approval, for each of the programs proposed for funding in your CMJJP in a prioritized order. SECTIONS-BOARD OF SUPER VISOR'S RESOLUTION Attach the required Board of Supervisors Resolution approving the Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan* . The resolution shall contain, at a minimum, the following: • Identification of the Chief Probation Officer/Chair of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. • Identification of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Members. • Assurances that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and approves the county's Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan. • Assurances that the County has adhered to the requirements of the Crime Prevention Act of 2000 and of the Board of Corrections regarding the submission of the plan. • Assurances that the plan has been developed and provided to the Board of Corrections in a format determined by the Board of Corrections not later than May 1, 2001. • Authorization for Chief Probation Officer/Chair of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to sign the application for approval of the plan by the Board of Corrections. • Assurances that upon approval of the county's Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan, the County will adhere to the requirements of the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (CPA 2000) regarding the expenditure of CPA 2000 funds and the submission of required Board of Corrections reports. * In the case of a city and county, a letter from the mayor approving the plan is also required. 4 of 4 1 PLANNING ACTIVITIES RICH HISTORY OF PLANNING: For more than 15 years, Contra Costa County has engaged in continued planning designed to strengthen its juvenile justice system. This sustained effort began in the mid-1980s with the creation of the Juvenile Justice Master Plan. The impetus for this decade plus of planning and innovation was not tied to grant opportunities, but to concerns within the County about attending to the welfare of its youth and citizens. In short, Contra Costa County has completed four comprehensive and collaborative systemwide planning studies over the past decade: the Juvenile Corrections Master Plan, the JSPAC Continuum of Care,the Community Punishment Options Plan, and the Comprehensive Strategy Strategic Plan. The county has supplemented these efforts with two Challenge Grant Local Action Plans, planning for the federal SafeFutures grant as well as this Crime Prevention Act 2000 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan. This intensive planning has facilitated the identification of strategies to enhance the County's Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care. For example, during the development of the 1998 Strategic Plan, the need to focus on girls emerged as a high priority. As a result, the County's Challenge II program targeted increased services for girls to meet the previously unmet needs of this population. JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL: The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) was established specifically for the development of the Local Action Plan that accompanied the County's proposal for Challenge funding; none 1 the less, the agencies represented on the Council have a long history of collaboration. Chaired by the County's Chief Probation Officer, the JJCC includes, as required by law, a representative from the following agencies: the district attorney's office; the public defender's office; the sheriff s department; the board of supervisors; the department of social services; the department of mental health; REACH, a community-based alcohol and drug program; city police departments; the county office of education; and an at- large community representative. It is important to once again reiterate that in the past few years alone, the County has undergone a number of comprehensive and collaborative planning processes, including planning for the federal SafeFutures grant and the Challenge I and II programs. These intensive planning efforts provide a foundation and help guide the identification of outstanding priorities and needs. In preparation for the County's Crime Prevention Act 2000 application, the JJCC held an initial meeting at the County Probation Office on November 14, 2000 to identify proposed program priorities. The County's current Local Action Plan served as a resource for that discussion. At that meeting, the JJCC recognized the importance of sustaining those existing programs producing positive outcomes whose funding is scheduled to conclude. The members also acknowledged the opportunity to further enhance the County's Continuum of Care. From that discussion, the JJCC agreed to use CPA 2000 funding in the following ways—to sustain the High School Challenge Teams; sustain the SafeFutures Program; expand the High School Challenge Team Program to Middle Schools; create the Community Probation Program; and establish a Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program. The County then contracted with Suzie Cohen and Associates to prepare the Crime Prevention Act 2000 application. They also contracted with Mark Morris and Associates to address the outcomes and evaluation-related aspects of the program. Mark Morris and Associates has extensive experience with Contra Costa County's juvenile justice programs. The firm is currently conducting evaluations for the County's Challenge Grant programs as well as the federal SafeFutures grant. The JJCC reconvened on January 24, 2001 to finalize the updated CMJJP and review the application as prepared by the consulting firms to ensure that it accurately reflected the program priorities developed by the Council. The approved plan and application were submitted to the Board of Supervisors for final adoption. CONTINUED EMPHASIS ON PLANNING: Clearly, Contra Costa County's application for Crime Prevention Act 2000 funding represents just the latest step in an ongoing effort to respond to the needs of its juvenile justice clients, families and the community as a whole. This emphasis on involving partner agencies in providing, brokering and integrating services and identifying unmet needs goes hand in hand with the County's commitment to evaluating programs and continuing what works. 3 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY HISTORY OF ACTIVITIES: This application for Crime Prevention Act 2000 funding grows out of more than a decade of work and activism in Contra Costa County. The County has been engaged in a systemic and sustained effort to improve its juvenile justice system since the mid-]980's when it developed a Juvenile Justice Master Plan. The impetus for this decade plus of planning and innovation was not tied to grant opportunities, but to concerns within the County to about attending to the welfare of our youth and citizens. In 1992 the County Board of Supervisors instituted the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) to lead the County's efforts to replace or improve the Juvenile Hall and to enhance the whole range of sanctions and services in the juvenile justice system. Today, JSPAC continues as an active voice in the County. JSPAC's membership includes representation of all of the County's youth and family service and juvenile justice agencies, along with representatives from other advisory boards, community based organizations and service providers, labor, taxpayers associations and citizens from each supervisorial district. The following chronology summarizes the County's on-going efforts since the creation of JSPAC to review juvenile justice needs and create programs to address the issues identified in planning. 1994 • JSPAC issues Continuum of Care report calling for 300 secure beds at the Hall site by the Year 2005, and urging creation of electronic monitoring, intensive supervision probation, locked mental health treatment, and day reporting. JSPAC also stresses the need for more programs for girls, to provide them equal access to services. County Administrator's Office and Juvenile Court initiate study of the functions and operations of Probation. Among other things, report recommends "outstationing"probation officers in schools, police departments, and other local community centers. 1 1995 • JSPAC's Continuum of Care results in federal "SafeFutures" grant, which funds mental health treatment unit for post-disposition boys (the Summit Center), intensive aftercare for youth leaving the Boys Ranch, school based prevention programs, gang intervention programs, and a Volunteers in Probation program. • Juvenile Electronic Monitoring (JEM) instituted by Probation to ease population pressures at Hall. 1996 . Hall population down, in part because of JEM, but still over capacity on frequent occasions. • SafeFutures grant begins operation. Summit Center opens in unit adjacent to Hall, with 20 treatment beds for boys who would otherwise go to placement. • Community Punishment Options Plan recommends expansion at the Boys Ranch and increased use of community alternatives (such as JEM and day reporting). 1997 . Planning begins for a Girls Treatment Center (comparable to the Summit Center for boys). • Hall capacity remains at 160. Custody alternatives (Home Supervision and JEM) up from 39 ADP in 1995 to 143 by 1998. 1998 . Work begins on 10-bed expansion to Hall (under Violent Offender Incarceration Grant) and 26-bed expansion at Boys Ranch (Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility). • Through SafeFutures, County receives OJJDP assistance in the "Comprehensive Strategy"—a planning model requiring detailed community risk data as basis for key leaders to set justice priorities. • Comprehensive Strategy's Strategic Plan completed by JSPAC, updating the Continuum of Care, and listing the following as top priorities: new Juvenile Hall, Girls Treatment Unit and other programs for girls, and day reporting program for boys. Comprehensive Strategy consultants work with Probation to develop "structured decision- making" (objective risk/needs instruments for classifying juveniles for probation supervision). • Funding identified for the Girls' Treatment Unit; site and funding identified for day reporting center, also at current Hall complex. • County receives Challenge I Grant to place probation officers in schools. • Planning begins for day treatment for girls and for day reporting for boys. 1999 • Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center opens to serve as a residential placement for 20 girls who have failed other placements and/or who have serious mental health conditions that require intensive treatment 2 and close supervision. • County receives Challenge I1 funding to focus on program for girls, including "Circle of Care" Day Treatment Centers and Living Skills Foster Care Program. 2000 • The Edgar Transition Center, a day reporting program which allows early release to community supervision for boys, opens. In short, over the past decade Contra Costa County has completed four comprehensive and collaborative systemwide plarming studies: the Juvenile Corrections Master Plan. the JSPAC Continuum of Care, the Community Punishment Options Plan, and the Comprehensive Strategy Strategic Plan. The county has supplemented these efforts with two Challenge Grant Local Action Plans as well as the Crime Prevention Act 2000 Comprehensive Multia encs Juvenile Justice Plan. Experience in administering and evaluating programs. The consistent theme related to these studies has been that each was followed by action—by the creation of the programs recommended in the planning. Moreover, the County is committed to evaluating the programs it creates. JEM, for example, regularly reports outcomes to JSPAC, in a format required by JSPAC. The SafeFutures program is subject to both a local evaluation conducted by the Institute for the Study of Social Change at U.C. Berkeley and a national evaluation (covering all six SafeFutures sites) by the Urban Institute. The County has commissioned several experimental design evaluations on programs such as the Challenge efforts and the ranch aftercare program supported by the East Bay Public Safety Corridor and evaluated by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Experienced in data collection needed to support evaluation, Contra Costa County County is, moreover, committed to making programs and services accountable 3 for outcomes. It has now published "Children's Report Cards" and each year develops a "Children's Budget"—both efforts to tie policymaking to results. Continuum of Care. Continually seeking to develop a fully articulated continuum of services, the County is currently working to sustain existing programs that have shown positive results by leveraging other funds to replace completed grant funding as well as enhancing and expanding successful services. In fact, sustaining and enhancing the County's Continuum of Care is the focus of this application. Collaborative and integrated approach. At the level of planning and policy making, Contra Costa County uses two main interagency bodies: JSPAC, which addresses juvenile justice issues, and the Policy Forum, initially established under AB 1741, to set overall policy regarding all children and family issues and to oversee the Children's Report Card and the Children's Budget. In addition, groups such as the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, which developed program priorities for Crime Prevention Act 2000 funding, work with JSPAC and Policy Forum. Both JSPAC and the Policy Forum are broadly inclusive, the latter including all pertinent County Department heads as well as representatives of community organizations, cities and schools. JSPAC's membership was described above. The Contra Costa Future Corps is a more recent development; it is designed to involve the private sector—business and private foundations—in a collaborative effort to enlist the community at-large in identifying and implementing needed prevention programs. Interagency collaboration is also emerging as a hallmark of how services are delivered. The County has two service integration sites—one stop shopping locations— at which probation, social services and other county agencies work as teams. Probation, 4 mental health and the County Office of Education jointly operate the Summit Center program for boys and the Chris Adams Girls' Treatment Center. Under SafeFutures, the County fields the Gang Core Team—a collaboration of community organizations, probation, employment agencies, schools and local police—to provide case management of 50 active youth gang members returning to West County from the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, the County's commitment facility. The Probation Department is seeking to establish closer ties with outside agencies and groups. The Challenge I Program, for example, outstations probation officers in high schools. The program evaluation found that the Challenge Grant Probation Officers created new roles for themselves, becoming part of the school community. These probation officers also established new collaborative relationships with many partners, including school administrators and staff. This emphasis on collaboration continues with the County's Crime Prevention Act 2000 application, as the programs proposed for funding all include a close working relationship with key partner agencies. IMPLEMENTATION OF CHALLENGE I AND 11 PROGRAMS: As mentioned above, Contra Costa County received both Challenge I and 11 grant funding. Challenge I created the High School Challenge Teain Program in which deputy probation officers are placed in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and specified services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth experiencing problems ranging from truancy to major criminal offenses. A collaboration among schools, probation and police officers, the program employs a variety of strategies designed to prevent youth from entering or re-entering the formal juvenile justice system. These 5 strategies include the utilization of police diversion, student courts and volunteer mediation. An evaluation performed at four of the participating schools found that the interventions and specialized referrals coordinated by the on-site probation officers resulted in clients being more attached to their school communities; this in turn creates more opportunities for pro-social development. The evaluation also showed the program led to a reduction in truancy, offending behavior and the seriousness of offenses on occasions where youth do re-offend. The County's Challenge II program focused on girls, acknowledging that girls present significantly different profiles from boys and that, in Contra Costa County and elsewhere, there are far fewer appropriate programs and setting settings for girls. The Challenge II program is the Circle of Care Day Treatment Program, which is an intensive field supervision program operating in each of the three county regions, for girls on probation or at high risk of delinquency and placement. The program incorporates a participatory community-building and self-empowerment model in collaboration with community resources. It focuses on individualized case management for girls and their families; small group cohorts facilitated by a case manager and an intern with an elected peer leader and interventions and therapeutic services to meet the psychological, intellectual and cultural needs of girls in their communities. An initial evaluation found that the program creates an anchoring process for girls in the day treatment centers. Girls attending the treatment centers experience fewer missed classes as compared to those clients not attending the centers. 6 CURRENT CONDITION AND NEEDS OF THE LOCAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: Through the on-going and inclusive planning and implementation processes discussed above, Contra Costa County has built successful programs that directly respond to a variety of needs. Now it is concentrating on not losing those which have proven to be producing positive results for participating youth, families and the community at-large, particularly the High School Challenge Teams and SafeFutures programs, the grants for which are scheduled to conclude within the 2001-02 fiscal year. The County also considers it a priority to further enhance services to strengthen its Continuum of Care. The programs proposed in this application respond to these needs to sustain and enhance services, and emphasize Contra Costa County's commitment to continuing to leverage funds. As it has with its Summit Center, for example, the County seeks to blend funding from such sources as federal SafeFutures grant dollars, AB 3015 System-of-Care money, Medi-Cal matching funds, County Office of Education and County General Fund dollars. Its Crime Prevention Act 2000 programs will leverage and blend resources to enhance the breadth of integrated services the County provides. 7 I. Sustain High School Challenge Team Program Initiated with Challenge I funding, the High School Challenge Team Program focuses on placing probation officers in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and specified services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth experiencing problems ranging from truancy to major criminal offenses. Among other outcomes, the program seeks to reduce delinquent offenses; provide for higher rates of successful completion of probation and restitution requirements; improve participating students' school attendance and performance and enhance overall school safety. A collaboration among schools, probation and police officers, the program employs a variety of strategies designed to prevent youth from entering or re-entering the formal juvenile justice system. These strategies include the utilization of police diversion, student courts and volunteer mediation. Currently operating in 8 schools in targeted areas of the county, the program's probation officers carry reduced caseloads averaging between twenty-five and thirty- five hirty-fve wards to allow for more intensive interaction with youth. An evaluation performed at four of the participating schools found that the interventions and specialized referrals coordinated by the on-site probation officers resulted in clients being more attached to their school communities, as well as a reduction in truancy, offending behavior and the seriousness of offenses on occasions where youth do re-offend. The current funding source for the High School Challenge Teams will terminate in June 2001. Given the positive outcomes achieved by the program, the County proposes to use $525,643 of its CPA 2000 dollars ($876,071 in total funds) to allow the program to continue uninterrupted during the 2001-02 fiscal year. This funding will be used to continue the services and associated costs for one supervisor, nine deputy probation officers and one clerk. 1 ll. Sustain SafeFutures Program Funded by a federal grant scheduled to conclude September 30,.2001, the SafeFutures Program contains a number of approaches to enhance the county's juvenile justice continuum of care. These approaches include intensive aftercare for youth leaving the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF); the Summit Center that provides specialized mental health treatment services; the Gang Core Team in which a collaboration of community organizations, probation, employment agencies, schools and police provide team case management to active gang members returning to the West County from the OAYRF; and the Volunteers in Probation program where more than 70 volunteers work with minors as mentors. CPA funding will allow the County to sustain these programs currently funded by the SafeFutures grant without interruption and also provide for enhancements in the ranch aftercare program. The aftercare program provides for continuity of care after release from the Boys Ranch. Deputy probation officers provide intensive supervision for at least 45 days, assisting youth with their readjustment to the community and school. One of the aftercare officers specializes in gang-related cases in the West End of the County. Evaluations found that after receiving the aftercare services, those youth who do re-offend commit less serious offenses. In addition to sustaining the Summit Center Program and the Volunteers in Probation Program for the entire 2001-02 fiscal year, CPA funding will allow the County to maintain two existing deputy probation officer positions whose funding is scheduled to terminate. It will also allow for the addition of two new deputy probation officers, starting May 1, 2001. Additionally, the County plans to expand the aftercare component from 45 to 60 days and focus on identified specialized caseloads, offering such services as preparation for emancipation. Overall funding for the SafeFutures component totals $600,458, with $476,858 coming from CPA 200 funds. 2 III. Expand the High School Challenge Team Program to Middle Schools As previously discussed, Contra Costa County utilized its Challenge I grant to establish High School Challenge Teams. Under this program, probation officers are placed in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and specified services to juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth experiencing problems ranging from truancy to major criminal offenses. Evaluations of the high school-based model show that the program produces positive outcomes for participants, including reductions in truancy, delinquent behavior and the seriousness of offenses for those youth who do re-offend. Given these successful results for high school-age youth, the County proposes to utilize a portion of its CPA funding to replicate this program in selected middle schools. Numerous research studies have shown that the middle school years are crucial to pro- social development. An expansion of the High School Challenge Team concept to middle schools will allow for earlier interventions with juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth. It is anticipated that such preventive action will improve life outcomes for participating youth and also reduce demand on the justice system in the out-years. The County proposes to target $613,250 in CPA funding ($1,022,083 is the overall program cost) for the services and other associated costs for one supervisor, nine deputy probation officers and one clerk to operate the Middle School Challenge Teams, beginning May 1, 2001. The County will work in close collaboration with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to identify middle schools receptive to placing a probation officer on-site. The expansion of this school-probation partnership to middle schools will strengthen the County's continuum of care and enhance early intervention in particular. 3 IV. Create a Community Probation Program Modeled after a similar program that Alameda County established under Challenge 1, Contra Costa County's Community Probation Program will use $886,823 in CPA funding ($1,258,039 overall) to out-station 8 probation officers in various police agencies throughout the county to focus on high-risk youth, at-risk youth and chronic offenders. The funding will also cover the costs for one supervisor and one clerk. Exact locations will be determined by working with the various police chiefs countywide to identify areas of greatest need. Starting May 1, 2001, the out-stationed probation officers will work non-traditional hours and collaborate with police agencies, schools and community based organizations to help prevent offending behavior. The program will strive to provide youth with the necessary tools to successfully complete probation requirements and avoid further formal involvement with the justice system. The Community Probation model, as exemplified in Alameda County, involves the use of multi-disciplinary teams, depending heavily upon collaboration between police and probation officers, schools, recreation departments and other community based organizations. The model also emphasizes the importance of maximizing the strengths of family, school and community when designing approaches for solving problems. An evaluation of the Alameda County program found that the interventions produced successful results. Specifically, program participants experienced a higher rate of completion of probation, restitution and court-ordered work program or community service. Other positive outcomes include the development of trust between the deputy probation officer and the youth and their families; increased visibility of deputy probation officers within the community; and better collaboration with law enforcement agencies. 4 V. Establish a Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program It is clear that the passage of Proposition 36 will greatly impact county probation departments. To offset some of the demands of Proposition 36, Contra Costa County proposes to use $550,931 in CPA funds to establish the Family Intervention in Substance Abuse Program. This program, which will begin May 1, 2001, will serve to provide supervision and intervention services for those families with children in the home where an adult is on probation for a substance abuse related offense. The overall goal of the program is to reduce the need for out-of- home placements for children whose risks are heightened by their parent's involvement in the justice system and with substance abuse. In strong collaboration with the County Welfare Department, County Alcohol and Drug Department, County Mental Health Department and other partners, the program will utilize a multi-disciplinary team approach to provide families with a variety of intervention and support services designed to strengthen families and address substance abuse issues. Such services could include family counseling, job skills training, alcohol and drug treatment services, conflict resolution training, parenting skills classes and after school recreation programs. Stanislaus County utilized Challenge II funding to establish a similar program, called the Family Oriented Community Utilization System (FOCUS). In that county, children of probationers receive first a needs assessment and then services based upon the results of that assessment. The program uses coordinated family case management to meet the needs of all family members. Goals of this program were to reduce the number of minors from participating families entering the justice system; the incidence of domestic violence in the home; and either the number of out-of-home placements for children or, if out-of-home placement is required, the early identification of that need to provide greater protection to the minor. 5 CPA 2000 Application for Approval Section 4 -Technical Compliance Technical Compliance Response Matrix County Contra Costa ....3.� .._..%:J-:..: ..'s.. _ D'.OR ..tea"•� '�";+.� - ... .'....... ..::.gay:.•.c'........... ........:'S,.+<...dil:x ....-.::..:"''.::��n.�. ::.:', 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 la P4GE(5) 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 fir:°;;;;;'' :':;::;-.• sEcnoN II II II II II 1b ��-.�=fir; : il is ;; 57-84 57-84 A 57-84 57-84 57-84 �;4;�' "'SECTION`� III III III III III 5x'a 1C >rF 85-87 85-87 85-87 85-87 85-87 SECTION IV IV IV IV IV : : xPJ4GEt5)t 88-89 89-91 94=95 97-98 100-101 >T.r- �ASECT10NrJ IV IV IV IV IV <<PiacE�g); 88 89-91 94-95 -98 97 100 si cngN:= IV IV IV IV IV ?' ' ;;PacEjs) 88-89 90-91 94 98 101 'dTrr " .SECTION;;= IV IV IV IV IV E 2b 7F:PaGE(sj; 88 89 95 97 100 :i ., .:.; IV IV IV IV IV C ;SECTION:" 'jPAGE(S) 105 105 105 105 105 F f t IV IV IV IV IV =sp`` ,SECTION; 2d 88, 89 89, 91-94 94-97 97-100 100-102 IV IV IV IV IV 8991-94 95-97 98-100 101-102 In the above matrix, please identify the section and page number of your CMJJP that responds to the corresponding requirement outlined in the instructions for completing Section 4 -Technical Compliance, items 1, 2 and 3 of your Application for Approval. c:steve\cpa2000\cpa approval.xls:skt 1 1/21/01