Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11042003 - C98 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra • tion Officer •+ --� �j -: - �• FROM: Steven L. Bautista, County Probation _ ; Costa DATE: November 4 2003 COUN�~fid SUBJECT: Third Annual Report on the Juvenile Justice Crime County Prevention Act Probation Department Programs , SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Accept the third annual report on the County Probation Department programs funded through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. BACKGROUND: The statutes governing the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act funds requires in Section 30061(4)(E)(i) of the Government Code that each county shall annually report to the County Board of Supervisors and the Board of Corrections on outcome measures and expend-itures forg pro rams approved in the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans. The penalty for failure to report the required data is forfeiture of subsequent allocations from the fund. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: -40 --------- ------------ ------------------------------------------------------ - r�COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _ .e,,APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES. r ---------------------------- ____- ----�-- -- __-------------------------------------------------------- -------- OTHER OF BO ON November 4+,- APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED --- OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE None AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS{ABSENT } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED November 4, 2003 CONTACT: Lionel Chatman,427-8384 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: County Probation Officer County Administrator ` Board of Corrections via Probation B ,DEPUTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT (JJCPA) JUNE 2002 THROUGH OCTOBER 2003 Collected and Compiled by: Lionel Chatman,Probation Manager/Plan Coordinator Report Tvned bv: Valerie Castro Pastor PROGRAMS • Community Probation • Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility-Aftercare Program • School-Based Deputy Probation Officer Program • Volunteers in Probation (VIP) • Summit Center • Family Intervention Program • Fee for Service Funding BOARD REPORT The legislation requires that the comprehensive multi-agency juvenile justice plan be developed by the local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to be chaired by the County Probation Officer. With approval from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the Probation Department has implemented this plan during the three years of program implementation. Contra Costa County's allocation for year 2002-2003 was $3,247,153. The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation (JJCPA) has allowed Contra Costa County to maintain funding for significant children's services. Funding through JJCPA allowed for the continuation of programs during the third year of funding. The following summarizes the programs that are for continued funding under JJCPA. COMMUNITY PROBATION PROGRAM Assigned to this program are eight (8) deputy probation officers to various police departments throughout the county. These agencies are Richmond Police Department, San Pablo Police Department, Martinez Police Department, Concord Police Department, San Ramon Police Department, Pittsburg Police Department, Antioch Police Department and Brentwood Police Department. The Community Probation Unit works with"at risk"youth in the community. Youth that are identified as living in a service area, in a continuation high school and on probation for a serious offense are candidates for acceptance into the program. Any youth in the service areas that are identified by either probation or local law enforcement as needing additional supervision are also accepted into the program. The program goals are to rehabilitate our troubled youth through intensive supervision and cooperation with local law enforcement, schools, and community-based organizations. Program goals include, but are not limited to, reducing recidivism, truancy, increasing academic achievement,building upon the strengths of the family, and increasing cooperation with local law enforcement and the schools. Each service area has features tailored to the strengths of their community. Features include: youth diversion panels, home visits with local law enforcement, evening visits and phone contacts by the deputy probation officer, intensive drug testing, close cooperation with community-based organizations, referrals to local counseling resources, participation in school truancy boards, joint police agency-probation gang information meetings, participation in the U.S. Marshall's Fugitive Retrieval Teams, truancy sweeps, and participation in community events (school football games, County Corn Fest, County Fair, County Safety Fest, etc). Intensive supervision has resulted in an increase in technical violations of probation (truancy, school suspensions, drug abuse, defiance of parental authority), but a decrease in law violations. The more 2 intensive supervision results in a dramatic increase in services directed towards the delinquent minor at an earlier level than general supervision. Consequences include Home Supervision/Electronic Monitoring, Community Services/Work Details, counseling from the community-based organization, out-of-home placement, commitment to the County Boys' Ranch and commitment to the California Youth Authority. The consequences are meant to re-enforce the family structure (when possible) in the community while addressing the client's counseling needs. Out-of-home placement, commitment to the Boys' Ranch or commitments to the California Youth Authority are used as"last resort" solutions. The Community Probation Program received recognition for Outstanding Community Service from Congressman George Miller as part of the Community Probation Program in the Juvenile Division. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Community Probation Program through Mark Morris Associates, a pre-post test approach is used. With their pre-post test component they asked deputy probation officers to gather data on clients at intake and at program exit. They sought to compare the behavior of individual clients during the period six months prior to program entry and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data, they gathered information on school achievement and behavior, delinquency behavior, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically they expected clients to exhibit behavior while in the program than in the period before program entry. This notion, rooted in the interest determining if clients responded to intensive probation supervision within the context of their communities, resulted in more positive attachment to community and interest in school and less involvement in delinquent behavior for the clients. Intake/assessment evaluation of the Community Probation Program under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes 414 clients who are intensively supervised within the community. The current preliminary data reveals that clients in the Community Probation Program possess the following characteristics: • Most of the clients are male (83 percent). • While no single ethnic group forms a majority, European Americans make up 42 percent of the caseload, Latinos 24 percent, African Americans 20 percent, Asian American 9 percent, Pacific Islander 1 percent, Filipino 1 percent, and"other" 3 percent. • Forty-seven percent of the clients come from single parent homes. • Fourteen percent of the clients live in households with family members involved in the criminal justice system. The following are results for 281 clients after a six-month program enrollment. The school and delinquency outcome data show evidence of program effectiveness. • Twenty-eight percent were enrolled in continuation schools, 19 percent were enrolled in comprehensive schools, 12 percent were enrolled in community day schools, 9 percent had graduated from high school, 8 percent were enrolled in alternative education, 9 earned a GED, or passed a high school equivalency examination, 5 percent were in independent study, 1p ercent each were in court school and private school, while 11 percent were not enrolled, but should have been. • Sixty-three percent had earned the normal and expected number of academic units during the intervention period. • Thirty-four percent of the clients had a school attendance problem and 30 percent were habitual truants. 3 • Fourteen percent were placed or continued on probation for an offense committed during the intervention period. • Forty-four percent of the clients were arrested during the intervention program. • Five percent of the most serious arrests were for misdemeanor offenses, 7 percent were for felony offenses, and 1 percent was for incorrigibility (66 percent did not apply). Of these arrests 22 percent were for VOP, 3 percent were for all other misdemeanors, 4 percent for property offenses, 2 percent for violent offenses, 2 percent for drug offenses, and 1 percent for all other felonies (66 percent did not apply). • Forty-one percent had no obligation to complete court-ordered work programs during the intervention. Of all the clients who exited the intervention, 43 percent completed their work program responsibility while 16 percent did not. • Seven percent completed their obligation while 93 percent did not. Six percent were ordered to pay restitution to a victim for an offense committed during the intervention. Concerning mental health characteristics, the following was found: • Thirty-one percent who have completed the intervention have a drug problem, and 15 percent have an alcohol problem. Participants benefited from a wide array of services. The table below illustrates the proportion of clients who received specific services during the intervention period. Home Visits-Probation Officer------------------------86 percent Family Visits-Probation Officer-----------------------83 percent School Visits-Probation Officer-----------------------79 percent Drug Abuse Counseling --------------------------------42 percent Electronic Monitoring---------------------------------- 33 percent Financial Restitution----------------------------------- 30 percent Alcohol Abuse Counseling---------------------------- 27 percent Community Service -------------------------------------26 percent Family -------------------------------------- Counseling 23 percent Home Visits-Other Provider--------------------------- 22 percent Anger Management------------------------------------- 21 percent Work Program/Work Crew ---------------------------- 20 percent Family Conferencing----------------------------------- 17 percent Drug Abuse Treatment--------------------------------- 14 percent Family Visits-Other Provider-------------------------- 13 percent Institutional Commitment ------------------------------ 12 percent Alcohol Abuse Treatment------------------------------ 11 percent From intake to exit,the program observed the following changes in behavior: • The number of client expulsions during the intervention period decreased significantly. • The number of client suspensions during the intervention period decreased. • The rate of client arrests per 100 days decreased during the intervention. • The rate of sustained petitions per 100 days clients received decreased during the intervention period. 4 t • A 51 percent decrease was observed in client drug problems during the intervention period. • A 67 percent decrease was observed in client alcohol problems during the intervention period. • A 40 percent decrease was observed in school attendance problems during the intervention period. • A 44 percent decrease was observed in habitual truancy during the intervention period. • Forty-nine percent of the clients who had not earned the normal and expected number of academic units two quarters before program entry, did earn the normal and expected number of units during the intervention period. ORIN ALLEN YOUTH REHABILITATION FACILITY(OAYRF): RANCH AFTERCARE The Ranch Aftercare Program is set up such that there were six deputy probation officers working with clients while committed to OAYRF and in the field during their parole period. The deputy probation officers are assigned clients and must make their first contact with them within seven days of entry into the Ranch. During the commitment period, the deputy probation officers meet their clients to become acquainted with them and to ensure they comply with their court orders (this includes, but is not limited to, making sure the clients remain free of drugs and make sure the clients attend the appropriate classes such as drug/alcohol and anger management). When the juveniles complete their commitments they begin a parole period. The parole period consists of 90 days of intense supervision by a team of two deputy probation officers. The six Ranch Aftercare deputy probation officers are split into three teams of two, each covering one of the three geographic regions of Contra Costa County (West, East, Central). A client is assigned to a deputy probation officer based on his location in the county. Once the parole period starts the deputy probation officers are required to meet with their clients a minimum of one time a week. The deputy probation officers visit the clients at their homes, schools and in the community. During these visits, the deputy probation officers are responsible for upholding the court ordered components of a client's parole period. For example, if the ward has an anger management court order, the deputy probation officer is responsible for ensuring that the client participates in the appropriate classes. The deputy probation officers also test the wards for drugs regularly as drug use is a violation of the conditions of parole. Aside from visiting the clients and checking to see if they are adhering to their court orders, deputy probation officers also make referrals to various agencies for clients. These referrals include, but are not limited to, REACH, anger management, Narcotics Anonymous, and the like. There is also a good deal of collaboration between the deputy probation officers and outside agencies (police, school, etc...) and the clients' support units (families, relatives). The deputy probation officers use these as resources. For a client to successfully complete the parole period, he must complete the court assigned conditions during the parole period. If the youth recidivates he may not complete the parole period. This is dependant on the severity and/or frequency of the parole violation. Aside from the common bond of being "high risk," the clients served in the Ranch Aftercare Program are a diverse population from areas throughout the county. There are clients from low to high socioeconomic backgrounds, clients of various religious beliefs and clients of diverse ethnicities. Clients come from households with both parents present, single parent households, foster homes, households of relatives and friends, and other living situations. Though the number is small, there is a small sample of the population who are fathers. Other characteristics of the clients involved in the Aftercare Program are that some of the clients are employed during the parole period, clients are enrolled in various types of schools, clients 5 who should be enrolled in alternative education programs, and clients who have drug and alcohol issues among other things. "The overall aim of intensive aftercare is to transition and reintegrate identified `high risk' juvenile offenders from secure confinement gradually back into the community and thereby to lower the high rate of failure and relapse." (Altschuler, 199?) To accomplish this, the Aftercare model draws attention to five programmatic principles which establish the fundamental goals of the intensive aftercare program. These principles are: 1) Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community; 2) Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement; 3) Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g. families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youths' successful community adjustment; 4) Developing new resources and supports where needed; and 5) Monitoring and testing the youths and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively. The goals of the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility's (OAYRF) Aftercare Program are essentially identical to the goals prescribed to intensive aftercare programs by Altschuler and Armstrong. As stated by Irene Bergamini, Assistant Superintendent of OAYRF, "[t]he overall goal of the Aftercare Program is to provide a smooth transition from the Ranch commitment to home and school." In keeping with OAYRF's Aftercare goals, the aim of the Aftercare deputy probation officer is to ensure that their clients adhere to court orders (regular school attendance, attending drug and/or alcohol classes, remaining drug free, obeying parents, etc...) and to lower the rate of recidivism. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Ranch Aftercare Program through Mark Morris Associates, two complementary research designs were used. The first is a pre-post test approach; the second involves a historical comparison group. With their pre-post test component, they asked deputy probation officers to gather data on clients at intake and exit. They sought to compare the behavior of individual clients during the periods six months prior to detention at the Ranch and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data, they gathered information on school achievement and behavior, delinquency behavior, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically, they expected clients to exhibit better behavior while in the program than in the period before program entry. This notion was rooted in the interest of determining if clients responded to intensive probation supervision within their school community with stronger attachment and interest in school and less involvement in delinquent behavior. With their use of a historical comparison group, they sought to compare the youth to comparable youth who did not experience intensive probation supervision. This approach facilitated greater confidence regarding the effectiveness of programs. Where they can demonstrate comparable youth have different outcomes than youth who were enrolled in the program, they assert with more confidence that changes in behavior are the result of the intervention and not random chance. As in the case of the pre-post test approach, they used the same data gathered by deputy probation officers at intake and exit. They compared these data with data gathered by other deputy probation officers during the earlier SafeFutures Grant program in Contra Costa County. That program involved parolees who left the Ranch and where supervised in the community in the period before JJCPA. 6 Intake/assessment evaluation of the OAYRF Aftercare Program under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes 186 clients who are intensively supervised within the community. The current preliminary data reveals that clients in the Aftercare Program possess the following characteristics: • All are male. • Almost half(46 percent) of the boys are African American, 25 percent are Latinos, 17 percent are White, 5 percent are Asian American, and 2 percent are"other", and 5 percent are unidentified. • When released from OAYRF, over half of the boys (54 percent) will live with their mother, 17 percent with their father, 10 percent with relatives, 16 percent with two parents, 1 percent with "other", and 1 percent each with a foster parent and with a friend. • Thirteen of the 186 clients (7 percent) are fathers. The ongoing evaluation of the OAYRF Aftercare Program under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes 83 clients who are finished with the Aftercare Program. The preliminary data revealed the following about the clients: • Regarding the intervention, 30 percent of the clients failed to complete due to inadequate performance while 65 percent completed the requirements. Five percent dropped out. In 58 percent of the clients, the primary reason for program separation was successful completion of the program. Eleven percent failed to participate as required in the treatment plan, 11 percent probation violations were the primary cause for "unsuccessful" performance, 8 percent moved from the service area, and the remaining 6 percent commissions of a new law violation was the cause for separation. • Twenty-eight percent of the clients had a drug problem after completion of the program while 61 percent did not (eleven percent unknown). Twenty-two percent of the clients had an alcohol problem after completion while 65 percent did not (thirteen percent is unknown). • Nineteen percent of the clients were enrolled in community day school while 24 percent were enrolled in a comprehensive school. Two percent were enrolled in court schools, fourteen percent were enrolled in continuation schools, 17 percent were not enrolled but should be, 10 percent were "not applicable," 6 percent were alternative education, and 1 percent were in independent study. • Fifty-five percent of the clients did not have an attendance problem while 24 percent did (5 percent is unknown). An attendance problem was not applicable for 21 percent of the clients. Twenty-three percent of the clients were habitual truants while 57 percent were not. In 21 percent, habitual truancy was not applicable. • Twenty-nine percent of the clients were 11 th graders, 13 percent completed were high school graduates, 15 percent were 12th graders, 29 percent were 10th th graders, 9 percent were 9 graders, 4 percent were 8th graders, and 1 percent were 7th graders. • Fifty-four percent of the clients had earned the normal number of units while 46 percent had not. • Twelve students were suspended(15 percent), and one student (5 percent)was expelled. Participants benefited from a wide array of services. The table below illustrates the proportion of clients who received specific services during the intervention period. Home Visits-Probation Officer------------------------87 percent Family Visits-Probation Officer-----------------------84 percent School Visits-Probation Officer-----------------------80 percent 7 Alcohol Abuse Counseling-----------------------------78 percent Drug Abuse Counseling ---------------------------------75 percent Life Skills Training--------------------------------------66 percent Family Conferencing------------------------------------5 5 percent Health Education-----------------------------------------51 percent Mentoring -------------------------------------------------51 percent Alcohol Abuse Treatment ------------------------------ 47 percent Vocational Training------------------------------------- 46 percent Tutoring-------------------------------------------------- 45 percent Anger Management------------------------------------- 45 percent Drug Abuse Treatment --------------------------------- 43 percent Family Counseling-------------------------------------- 29 percent Peer Counseling ----------------------------------------- 25 percent Institutional Commitment------------------------------20 percent Conflict Resolution------------------------------------- 19 percent Mental Health Counseling----------------------------- 19 percent Financial Restitution------------------------------------17 percent From intake to exit, Mark Morris Associates observed the following changes in behavior in the treatment group: • The rate of arrests per 100 days decreased during the intervention period. • The rate of sustained petitions per 100 days decreased during the intervention period. • A 54 percent decrease in habitual truancy was observed during the intervention period. • A 52 percent decrease in school attendance was observed during the intervention period. • A 55 percent decrease was observed in clients with a drug problem during the intervention period. • A 58 percent decrease was observed in clients with an alcohol problem during the intervention period. During the intervention period, none of the clients were placed outside their homes or received institutional commitments. Also, none of the clients had community service obligations or work programs, none were referred to Child Protective Services, and none received sexual abuse counseling, emancipation skills training or individualized treatment plans. In comparing the Historical Comparison Group's delinquency outcomes with the delinquency outcomes of the current OAYRF treatment group, they observed that the treatment group's delinquency rates decreased at a higher rate than those of the historical comparison group. Arrest rates • Prior to program entry, 60 percent of the treatment clients had an arrest for a felony offense while only 7 percent had a felony arrest during the intervention period. Prior to program entry, 49 percent of the historical comparison clients had an arrest for felony offenses while 6 percent had a felony arrest during program intervention. • Prior to program entry, 24 percent of the treatment clients had an arrest for a misdemeanor offense while only 2 percent had a misdemeanor offense during the intervention. Prior to program entry, 17 percent of the historical comparison clients had an arrest for a misdemeanor offense while 5 percent had an arrest for a misdemeanor offense. 8 Sustained petition rates • Prior to program entry, 52 percent of the treatment clients had a sustained petition for a felony offense while only 4 percent had a sustained petition for a felony offense during the intervention period. Prior to the program entry, 40 percent of the historical comparison group had a sustained petition for a felony offense while 7 percent had a sustained petition for a felony offense during the intervention period. • Prior to program entry, 25 percent of the treatment clients had a sustained petition for a misdemeanor offense while only 1 percent had a sustained petition for a misdemeanor offense during the intervention period. Prior to program entry, 23 percent of the historical comparison group had a sustained petition for a misdemeanor offense while 4 percent had a sustained petition for a misdemeanor offense. These data suggest that the current cohort of youth supervised by the Ranch Aftercare Program during the JJCPA Era are experiencing greater success than a similar and previous cohort or youth supervised during the SafeFutures Era. SCHOOL-BASED DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER PROGRAM: MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM The Middle School Probation Program includes eight deputy probation officers across two units. These deputies provide intensive supervision services to students in ten comprehensive middle schools across the West, Central and East regions of the county. Each deputy probation officer is assigned one or more middle schools where s/he has an office and meets with clients at the school. The primary goals of the JJCPA Middle School Probation Program are to reduce the rate of recidivism, to reduce the rate of delinquent offenses committed by juveniles, to improve the rate of completion of probation, to improve the clients' school attendance and performance, and to enhance the overall safety of the school. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Middle School Probation Program through Mark Morris Associates, a pre-post test approach was used. With their pre-post test component,they asked deputy probation officers to gather data on clients at intake and at exit. They sought to compare the behavior of individual clients during the periods six months prior to program entry and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data, they gathered information on school achievement and behavior, delinquency behavior, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically, they expected clients to exhibit better behavior while in the program than in the period before program entry. This evaluation focuses on determining if clients responded to intensive probation supervision located within their schools of attendance with stronger attachment and interest in school and less involvement in delinquent behavior. Intake/assessment evaluation of the Middle School Probation Program under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes 771 clients who are intensively supervised within an academic setting. The current preliminary data reveals that clients in the Middle School Probation Program possess the following characteristics: 9 s • They are mostly male (64 percent). • While no single ethnic group forms a majority, African Americans make up 42 percent of the caseload, Latinos 28 percent, European Americans 24 percent, Asian Americans 5 percent, 1 percent Native American, and 1 percent other. • Less than half of the clients (47 percent) came from single parent households. • Thirteen percent live in households with family members involved in the criminal justice system. Data on the clients' academic backgrounds (attendance, achievement and citizenship)reveal the following attributes: • Forty-nine percent were seventh graders, 36 percent were sixth graders, 14 percent were fifth graders, and 1 percent were eighth graders. • Nearly one-third (29 percent) of the clients had not earned the normal and expected number of academic units in the two quarters before program entry. • Forty-one percent had school attendance problems and 22 percent were habitual truants as defined by the California Department of Education. Mark Morris Associates reported the following results for 593 clients after a six-month program enrollment: • Fifteen percent of the clients failed to complete the program and 14 percent dropped out of the program "through no fault of own" while 71 percent completed the requirements of the program. The primary reason for program separation was successful completion of program requirements (71 percent). • Six percent of the clients had a drug problem at the end of the intervention while 84 percent did not (11 percent was unknown). Four percent of the clients had an alcohol problem at the end of the intervention while 84 percent did not (11 percent was unknown). The following data show selected academic characteristics of the clients: • At the end of the intervention, 92 percent of the clients were enrolled in a comprehensive school, 1 percent were enrolled in continuation schools, 1 percent were enrolled in community day, 2 percent were enrolled in alternative education, and 1 percent were enrolled in court school. Private school and home study accounted for 1 percent, and 3 percent were not enrolled. • Thirty-seven percent of the clients had an attendance problem at the end of the intervention while 61 percent did not (2 percent did not apply). Twenty-three percent of the clients were habitual truants at the end of the intervention while 77 percent were not. • During the intervention period, 65 percent of the clients earned the normal and expected number of academic units while 35 percent did not. • Sixty-two percent of the clients had a suspension(s) during the intervention while 38 percent did not. Six percent were expelled during the intervention while 94 percent were not. Participants benefited from a wide array of services. The table below illustrates the proportion of clients who received the specific services during the intervention period. Mentoring ------------------------------------------------55 percent Special School Based Programs ----------------------55 percent 10 s Behavioral Contract ------------------------------------ 53 percent Anger Management------------------------------------ 50 percent School Visits-Probation Officer----------------------41 percent Family Conferencing-----------------------------------40 percent Tutoring--------------------------------------------------38 percent Peer Counseling-----------------------------------------38 percent Educational Incentives ---------------------------------34 percent Life Skills Training-------------------------------------32 percent School Visits-Other Provider-------------------------26 percent Conflict Resolution Training--------------------------20 percent Family Counseling--------------------------------------19 percent Health Education----------------------------------------18 percent Family Visits-Probation Officer-----------------------17 percent Home Visits-Probation Officer------------------------13 percent Parenting Training/Counseling for Parents of Juv--12 percent From intake to program exit, Mark Morris Associates observed the following changes in behavior: • The average GPA significantly decreased during the intervention period. • The rate of days missed per 100 days increased during the intervention period. • The rate of days with one or more cut per 100 days increased during the intervention period. • The rate of arrests per 100 days significantly decreased during the intervention period. • The rate of sustained petitions per 100 days increased during the intervention period. • A 55 percent decrease in habitual truancy was observed during the intervention period. • A 41 percent decrease in school attendance problems was observed during the intervention period. • A 66 percent decrease was observed in clients with a drug problem during the intervention period. • An 80 percent decrease was observed in clients with an alcohol problem during the intervention period. The School Based Deputy Probation Officer Program received a Certificate of Achievement in Recognition of Outstanding Community Service from Congressman George Miller. The Program also received Certificates of Recognition from Assemblyman Joseph Canciamilla and Gy Houston. This Program was the 2002 Recipient of the Juvenile Justice Award from the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission. SCHOOL-BASED DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER PROGRAM: HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM The High School Program includes ten deputy probation officers across two units. These deputy probation officers provide intensive supervision services to students in ten comprehensive high schools across the West, Central, and East regions of the county. Each deputy probation officer is assigned to a high school where s/he has an office, meets with clients at the school, and provides support to school staff members. 11 The primary goals of the JJCPA High School Probation Program are to reduce the rate of recidivism, to reduce the rate of delinquent offenses committed by juveniles, to improve the rate of completion of probation, to improve the clients' school attendance and performance and to enhance the overall safety of the school. To evaluate the effectiveness of the High School Program through Mark Morris Associates, two complementary research designs were used. The first is a pre-post test approach; the second involves a historical comparison group. With their pre-post test component they asked deputy probation officers to gather data on clients at intake and at exit. They sought to compare the behavior of individual clients during the periods six months prior to program entry and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data, they gathered information on school achievement and behavior, delinquency behavior, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically they expected clients to exhibit better behavior while in the program than in the period before program entry. This notion was rooted in the interest of determining if clients responded to intensive probation supervision within their school community with stronger attachment and interest in school and less involvement in delinquent behavior. The historical comparison group facilitates a comparison to comparable youth who did not experience intensive probation supervision. This approach facilitates greater confidence regarding the effectiveness of the program. Where they can demonstrate comparable youth have different outcomes than youth who were enrolled in the program, they can assert with more confidence that changes in behavior are the result of the intervention and not random chance. As in the case of the pre-post test approach, they used the same data gathered by deputy probation officers at intake and exit. They compared these data with data gathered by other deputy probation officers during the earlier Challenge Grant I program in Contra Costa County. That program involved probationers and at-risk youth attending local area high schools during the period before JJCPA. Intake/assessment evaluation of the High School Probation Program under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes 284 clients who are intensively supervised within an academic setting. The current preliminary data reveals that clients in the High School Probation program possess the following characteristics: • Seventy-eight percent of the clients are male while 22 percent were female. • The average age at intake was 16 years old. • No ethnic group comprised a majority of clients, however, 41 percent were European American, 28 percent were African American, 21 percent were Latino, 4 percent were Asian American, 2 percent were Native American and 3 percent were other. • A majority of clients (77 percent) reported their mothers as primary caregivers with fathers represented as secondary caregivers by 15 percent. • Forty-two percent of clients were from single-parent households. Mark Morris Associates reported the following results for 227 clients after a six-month program enrollment. The exit data show the following. • Nine percent of the clients failed to complete the program and 12 percent dropped out of the program"through no fault of own"while 80 percent completed the requirements of the program. 12 The primary reason for program separation was successful completion of program requirements (78 percent). • Six percent of the clients had a drug problem at the end of the intervention while 83 percent did not (11 percent was unknown). Six percent of the clients had an alcohol problem at the end of the intervention while 82 percent did not (13 percent was unknown). • At the end of the intervention 81 percent of the clients were enrolled in a comprehensive school, 6 percent had graduated or received their GED, 4 percent were enrolled in continuation schools, 3 percent in alternative education, 2 percent in independent study and community day school, court school, private school, home study and those "not enrolled but should be" each accounted for 1 percent. • Thirty-four percent of the clients had an attendance problem at the end of the intervention while 65 percent did not (1 percent unknown). Twenty-one percent of the clients were habitual truants during the intervention while 78 percent were not. • During the intervention period 61 percent of the clients earned the normal and expected number of academic units. • Twenty-seven percent of the clients had a suspension(s) during the intervention and 3 percent were expelled during the intervention. Participants benefited from a wide array of services. The table below illustrates the proportion of clients who received the specific services during the intervention period. Family Visits-Probation Officer------------------------- 70 percent School Visits-Probation Officer------------------------- 66 percent Home Visits-Probation Officer-------------------------- 62 percent Work Program/Work Crew------------------------------ 45 percent Alcohol Abuse Counseling------------------------------- 33 percent Drug Abuse Counseling----------------------------------- 32 percent Special School Based Programs -------------------------- 31 percent School Visits-Other Provider----------------------------- 28 percent Family Counseling----------------------------------------- 25 percent Anger Management---------------------------------------- 23 percent Family Conferencing --------------------------------------- 22 percent Behavioral Contract---------------------------------------- 21 percent Life Skills Training---------------------------------------- 20 percent Tutoring----------------------------------------------------- 19 percent Anti-Tobacco Use Training--------------------------------19 percent Electronic Monitoring---------------------------------------16 percent Mentoring-----------------------------------------------------15 percent Individualized Treatment Plan-----------------------------14 percent Conflict Resolution------------------------------------------14 percent Peer Counseling ----------------------------------------------13 percent Vocational Training----------------------------------------- 12 percent The intervention data also reveals that none of the clients received job placement, were provided transportation, or received sexual abuse counseling. From intake to program exit, Mark Morris Associates observed the following changes in behavior: 13 • The rate of days missed decreased during the intervention period. • The rate of days with one or more cuts showed a statistically significant decrease during the intervention period. • The rate of an arrest per 100 days was a rare occurrence. However, data showed a statistically significant decrease during the intervention period. • The rate of sustained petitions per 100 days slightly decreased during the intervention period. • A 24 percent decrease in habitual truancy was observed during the intervention period. • A 35 percent decrease in school attendance problems was observed during the intervention period. • A 31 percent decrease in clients with a drug problem was observed during the intervention period. • A 15 percent decrease in clients with an alcohol problem was observed during the intervention period. VOLUNTEERS IN PROBATION MLP.) Volunteers in Probation (VIP) is a mentoring program that matches community members with youth involved in the juvenile justice program. Possible VIP mentors and mentees must both submit to an application to the VIP program director and undergo a screening process conducted by the VIP Program Director. Prospective mentees must submit a written request for a mentor to the program director. This request form includes information such as likes, dislikes, hobbies and other personal information. Most of the mentee requests come from youth in the Summit Center, the Chris Adam's Girls Center or from the youths' deputy probation officers. Once a request is received, the director speaks to the youth's deputy probation officer and then compiles an information packet for a perspective mentor. Mentor candidates must apply to the program. Once a perspective mentor has applied, s/he meets with the program director at which point they are explained the goals of the program, the type of youth the program serves and the level of involvement expected. Perspective mentors must pass a background check, which includes a DMV and fingerprint background check. Mentors are also required to sign a confidentiality contract. If a perspective mentor is eligible, a second meeting is held with the program director at which the mentors select a mentee based on the compiled information packets. The mentor/mentee pairs are expected to meet weekly, generally once a week, for a few hours. Activities VIP mentors/mentees participate in, but are not limited to, going to movies, attending sporting events, going shopping or to concerts. Periodically the VIP program director arranges voluntary group outings. Past outings have included trips to Six Flags Marine World and whale watching in the San Francisco Bay. The mentors are expected to keep track of the time they spend with their mentees and provide this information to the VIP director in the form of a contact log. The goal of the Volunteers in Probation program is to provide positive adult role models to youth on probation. By providing mentors for probation-assigned youth, VIP program staff hope to improve mentees' self-esteem and academic performances while reducing delinquency. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Volunteers in Probation through Mark Morris Associates, a pre-post test approach was used. They asked program staff to gather data on clients at intake and at exit. They sought to compare the behavior of these individuals during the periods six months prior to program entry and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data, they gathered information on 14 school achievement and behavior, delinquency behavior, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically they expected clients to exhibit better behavior during the program when they were linked with an adult mentor than in the period before program entry. This notion was rooted in the interest of determining if clients responded to interaction with caring adults. Intake/assessment evaluation of the Volunteers in Probation under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes six clients who are intensively supervised within the community. The interim data for the first two years of the program revealed that clients in the VIP program possess the following characteristics: • Twenty-eight percent(9) of the clients were male while 72 percent(23)were female. • Sixty-three percent (20) of the clients were European American, 9 percent (3) were Latino and 22 percent (7) are African American. • Thirty-one percent of the clients were living with their mother prior to program entry, 6 percent were staying with their father, and 6 percent were staying with a relative. Fifty percent of the clients noted staying with"other"prior to program entry. • One client was pregnant at program entry while two were teen parents. Data regarding academic characteristics of clients showed the following: • Most clients had completed middle school (77 percent), while 6 percent completed elementary school, and 13 percent completed high school. • Forty-six percent of clients were enrolled in community day school (13 percent), continuation school (9 percent), alternative education school (6 percent), and independent study (3 percent). Three percent of clients were not applicable, and 19 percent of clients had missing enrollment data. • Fifty percent of clients had school attendance problems prior to program entry while 31 percent did not. School attendance problem data was missing on 19 percent of clients. • Twenty-two percent of clients were habitual truants before the intervention period while 60 percent were not. Habitual truant data was missing on 19 percent of clients. • Fifty-six percent of clients did not near the normal expected number of academic units in the two school quarters prior to program entry while 25 percent did. Data was missing on 19 percent of clients for this data set. Participants benefited from a wide array of services. The table below illustrates the proportion of clients who received the specific services during the intervention period. Mentoring----------------------------------------------- 100 percent Drug Abuse Counseling------------------------------- 60 percent Health Education--------------------------------------- 60 percent Life Skills Training/Counseling---------------------- 49 percent Alcohol Abuse Counseling---------------------------- 49 percent Family Visits-Probation Officer---------------------- 48 percent Family Counseling-------------------------------------- 44 percent Anger Management------------------------------------- 33 percent Home Visits-Probation Officer------------------------ 30 percent School Visits-Probation Officer----------------------- 30 percent 15 Mark Morris Associates reported results for 27 clients after a six-month program enrollment. The exit data showed the following: • Six months prior to program entry, an average of one arrest was recorded of the client, while during intervention there was a statistically significant reduction in arrest rate. • Data showed the number of sustained petitions issued to clients was a rare event during the six months prior to program entry and during the intervention period. • Expulsion of clients six months prior to the intervention was a rare occurrence as well as during the intervention period. • The number of suspensions issued to clients six months prior to intervention was a rare occurrence as well as during the intervention period. There was a slight decrease of suspensions during the intervention period. SUMMIT CENTER The Summit Center program is collaboration between the County Office of Education, Contra Costa County Probation Department and the Children's Department of Mental Health. Each of these components works together to achieve the common goals of the Summit Center. As such, the roles of these components often overlap,however some specifics can be identified. The Summit Center school is a Juvenile Court School within the Contra Costa County Office of Education. Residents must attend a minimum of three hours of school each day. Summit Center staff worked with the County's Director of Alternative Education to develop appropriate educational programs for the residents. In addition to teachers, a speech and language instructor as well as volunteers are available to aid the residents' academic needs. A client may not graduate from the Summit Center unless he fulfills his academic requirements. As a result, most clients' academic performances improve while at Summit. The probation team at the Summit Center provides intensive probation supervision to Summit clients. The goals of the probation component are to not only control clients' behaviors while at Summit, but also to maintain safety at the program. All members of the probation staff are also trained for safety and security of both staff and clients. The mental health team at the Summit Center works individually with clients as well as their families to address the mental health needs of the clients and facilitate a positive change in clients. A large portion of the mental health component involves counseling, both group and individual, as well as a victim empathy group. All clients must complete a victim empathy profile before graduating. A client is deemed to have completed requirements of the Summit program when all of the above- mentioned program goals have been met. As of April 2002, 154 young men have been through the Summit Center program. Seventy-one clients had successfully graduated the program, 59 did not meet the graduation requirements, and the remaining 24 were still residents at the time of this report. The Wraparound portion of the Summit Center program begins early in the clients' treatment and continues throughout his time at Summit as well as for a period after he is discharged. The concept of wraparound is to gather family members and close community members (such as religious leaders, 16 neighbors, etc.) to form a support group for each client The wraparound groups meet about once a month and are believed by some Summit staff to be key elements in clients' success. The wraparound groups as well as an Independent Living Skills Program help each client transition back to the community. Most of the referrals to the Summit Center come from the Juvenile Court. Deputy probation officers in the Placement Unit also make some referrals. A Placement Screening Committee who then refers appropriate candidates to the Summit Intake Committee, which is comprised of the Summit Intake Coordinator, then screens the referrals and a probation officer assigned to Summit. These two individuals then assess the applicant and his family to determine whether the applicant would be appropriate for the Summit Center. The overall goal of the Summit Center is for clients to successfully complete the program. There are several factors that"define" a client's success. These factors include: • A client's parents/caregivers have successfully completed the Summit Center's "Parent Project99 (a training program for parents of delinquent youth). • A client has a successful wraparound group. • The client has completed his victim empathy requirements. • The client has maintained his academic work. • The client's behavior reflects a positive change. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Summit Center through Mark Mom's Associates,, a pre-post test approach was used. They asked program staff to gather data on clients at intake and at exit. They sought to compare the behavior of these individuals during the periods six months prior to program entry and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data they gathered information on school achievement and behavior, delinquency behavior, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically they expected clients to exhibit better behavior after exiting the program than in the period before program entry. This notion was rooted in the interest of determining if clients responded to intensive mental health treatment. Intake/Assessment evaluation of the Summit Center Program under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Allocation in Contra Costa County includes 40 clients who are intensively supervised within the community. The current preliminary data reveals that clients in the Summit Center program possess the following characteristics: • All are male. • Forty-three percent of the clients are African American, 35 percent are White, 15 percent are Latino, 5 percent are Asian American, and 2 percent are Pacific Islanders. Participants benefited from a wide array of services. The table below illustrates the proportion of clients who received specific services during the intervention period: Tutoring --------------------------------------------------100 percent Family Visits-Probation Officer-----------------------100 percent Family Visits-Other Provider--------------------------1.00 percent Alcohol Abuse Counseling---------.--------------------.100 percent Drug Abuse Counseling-------------------------------- 100 percent Family Conferencing------------------------------------100 percent Health Education-----------------------------------------100 percent 17 Individualized Treatment Plan----------------------------100 percent Anger Management ----------------------------------------100 percent Family Counseling------------------------------------------100 percent Conflict Resolution-----------------------------------------100 percent Mental Health Counseling---------------------------------100 percent Parenting Training/Counseling for Parents of Juv 100 percent Parenting Training/Counseling----------------------------100 percent From intake to program exit, Mark Morris Associates observed the following changes in behavior in the treatment group: • The rate of arrests per 100 days decreased during the intervention period from 1.3675 arrests to .4274 arrests. • The rate of sustained petitions per 100 days decreased during the intervention period from 1.3636 arrests to .2020 arrests. • A decrease was observed in clients with a drug problem during the intervention. Prior to program entry 11 clients had a drug problem, and after the intervention period, 2 clients had a drug problem. • A decrease was observed in clients with an alcohol problem during the intervention. Prior to program entry 9 clients had an alcohol problem, and after the intervention period, 3 clients had an alcohol problem. While no decrease was observed in the clients' habitual truancy or school attendance, no increases were observed either. FAMILY INTERVENTION PROGRAM The Family Intervention Unit includes one probation supervisor and five deputy probation officers. This unit provided services to clients in East, Central and West Contra Costa County. Each caseload is capped at 25 clients,, including the client's partner and children. "Wraparound" services are offered through the Family Intervention Program with services that are client and family oriented. These services focus on ensuring client compliance with court orders and probation agreements (such as supervision/restriction stipulation and case plan for rehabilitative services). Family oriented services involve deputy probation officers working with the counselors and advocacy groups to support and develop a healthy family functioning to aid in the reduction of out-of-home placements for children. The main goal of the Family Intervention Program is 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." (Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan, p.104) Program administrators argued that such homes resulted in the children being at higher risk of out-of-home placement and elevated delinquency rates. Because clients' children are in households with caregivers who are involved in the justice system as a result of substance abuse, Family Intervention Program deputy probation officers work focuses on linking families to available resources. 18 Family Intervention Program deputy probation officers work with families who are faced with many challenges. Data from the first two fiscal years reveal that deputy probation officers serviced 142 families who were involved with the justice system because of substance abuse. Most of these families display "non-traditional"behaviors and family structures. The terms traditional or primary are often absent in the typical Family Intervention Program caseload. Often the children do not live with their biological parents, siblings often have different mothers or fathers and children commonly reside with relatives. Additionally, clients and their families often hail from low-income communities and have limited educational backgrounds. Many have lost a lot of time and support due to their substance abuse, domestic abuse or incarceration. Deputy probation officers work with their clients to deal with the stress of rehabilitation and reunification within their communities and families. Due to the complexity of their caseloads, Family Intervention Program deputy probation officers consume much of their time working with clients while also juggling their client's family's welfare and emotional stability, social workers, courts, and allocating resources in their daily tasks. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Family Intervention Program through Mark Morris Associates, a pre- post test approach was used. They asked deputy probation officers to gather data on adult probation clients, their partners, and their children at program intake and exit. They sought to compare the behavior of these individuals during the periods six months prior to program entry and six months after program entry. Aside from demographic and risk data, they gathered information, when applicable, on school achievement and behavior, delinquency, and service delivery. They then compared behavior between the two periods. Programmatically they expected clients to exhibit better behavior while in the program than in the period before program entry. This notion was rooted in the interest of determining if clients responded to intensive probation supervision within the context of their communities by avoiding court sanctions and increasing sobriety. Among the children, where appropriate, they sought to determine which of the Unit's interventions resulted in better personal and academic outcomes including attachment and interest in school and less involvement in delinquent behavior. The following data reveals the 142 adult probation clients in the Family Intervention Program had the following characteristics when they entered the program. • Eighty-eight clients (62 percent) are male and fifty-four(38 percent) are female. • Almost half(48 percent) of the clients are White, 27 percent are Latino, 14 percent are African American, 2 percent as Asian American, 1 percent are Filipino, 1 percent are Pacific Islanders, 1 percent are American Indian, and 4 percent claimed other. • Over half(54 percent) of the clients have had"some high school", 20 percent have graduated from high school, 15 percent have had "some college", 3 percent are college graduates, 1 percent have "some post-graduate training", 2 percent have a graduate or professional degree, and 6 percent of the clients have"less than high school". • Four percent of the clients are gang members, 92 percent are not gang members, and gang membership is unknown in 4 percent of the clients. • Fifty-one percent of the clients were not abused as children, 23 percent of the clients were abused, and history of abuse is unknown in 26 percent of the clients. • Seventy-eight percent of the clients do not have a current CPS case while 20 percent have an active CPS case, and 1 percent is unknown. • Eighty-one percent of the clients do not have a past CPS case while 17 percent have had a past CPS case, and 2 percent is unknown. 19 The following data reveals that the 342 children of the Family Intervention Program clients possess the following characteristics: • Fifty-four percent of the children are male and 46 percent are female. • Thirty-seven percent of the children are White, 34 percent are Latino, 40 percent are African American, 3 percent are Asian American, 3 percent are Filipino, 1 percent are Pacific Islanders, 3 percent are Native American, and 4 percent are other. • The average age of the children was 8 years old. Presently, Mark Morris Associates has outcome data on eighty-nine primary adult clients. Of the forty- two clients with felony convictions during the six months before intervention., 81 percent (34) had no convictions during the intervention period while 10 percent (4) had misdemeanor convictions and 10 percent (4) had felony convictions. Of the forty-five clients with a misdemeanor conviction six months before program entry, 91 percent (41) did not have a conviction during the intervention period; 9 percent (4) had a misdemeanor conviction. Sixty percent (53) of the clients did not have a drug problem at program exit while 34 percent (30) did. Only 9 percent (8) of the clients had an alcohol problem at the end of the intervention period and 71 percent (64) did not, and 19 percent (17) an alcohol problem is unknown. The Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council proposed that the Family Intervention Program be eliminated due to the unavailability of funds under JJCPA to address an increase in employees benefit costs. Therefore, as of June 30, 2003, the Family Intervention Program was eliminated. FEE FOR SERVICE FUNDING Fee for service finding has been established as an alternative to the Department entering into contractual arrangements with a limited number of community-based organizations. Under this service program, the Department may purchase services on an as needed basis, rather than entering into blanket contracts with various non-profit entities. The goal has been and continues to be to purchase services on demand that gives the Department the greatest flexibility in effectively addressing the needs of the client on an individualized basis. CONCLUSION Contra Costa County Probation Department continues to provide much needed services through its JJCPA programs that target at-risk youth and juvenile offenders and promote prevention and intervention services. The JJCPA allocation represents an enormous boost to our efforts to combat juvenile crime and establish collaborative partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, community-based organizations, and various school districts countywide. Our programs have enabled the Department to implement a juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime, and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. Our third report has yielded positive data that indicates our strategies to address at-risk youth and juvenile delinquency have put us on the right course toward reducing delinquency behavior throughout the county. 20 Although the quantitative evidence presents positive results as encouraging indicators, this is not a panacea to eliminate juvenile crime. We are a long way from achieving that goal, but the report is an encouraging document that points us in the right direction. Our JJCPA programs are off to a very good start with encouraging results for our participants and stakeholders. To highlight some of our achievements, it is noted that the Community Programs division was the recipient of a Certificate of Achievement in Recognition of Outstanding Community Service by Congressman George Miller and Assemblyman Gy Houston. Moreover, the School-Based Deputy Probation Officer's Program was the recipient of the Juvenile Justice Award for Outstanding Service-Contribution by a School Delinquency Prevention Program by the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Council. The School-Based Deputy Probation Officer's Program also received additional recognition from Assemblymen Joseph Canciamilla, Gy Houston and Congressman George Miller. These achievements are indicators that the community has recognized the quality of work our programs have achieved. With continued State and County investment in our JJCPA programs, our strategies aimed at reducing crime and delinquency among at-risk youth should yield significant returns well into the future. Attached to this document is the Third Annual October 15, 2003 report to the Board of Corrections on data collection for all programs and fiscal expenditures. 21 CU 0 Cl) > %W 0 O)CD c c c 0 o o 6-0 5 m 3: 3: 3 0 0 0 0 0 z !E co 0 A:)uteni.L CD -#-a lerqlqy3H E 0' co r. L. 0 0 CD CD ch 2 CL y 0 0 CL C) s- Cl. 0 0 0 0 z > suuelqOid CD2 C >- Q. a) %I.. @_ E eouepuelIv 0 0 0 CD tp (D E 0 c c c C: Cc Im 3:o 3: 0 m SU()islndxg 0 0 0 0 'Cu 0 z LL M cn > L. m 100405 0 CL C: 0 Lm 0 1 0 0 0 C C C C 0). E 0 0 suolsuedsnS o 0 0 0 z x 0 a)0 G 1 � 10043 E L) S 0 cu 0 4-a *0 cn 0 CD IM C: O Q V cm 0 m poss1w 0 om 0 z z 0 0 E 0 = 0 w sAyaC] lo 0 0 040S 0) 0 C 0 0 m () L- 0% LM 0 c 4- 3 - = _,— SUORROd 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0uielsnS jo# 0 0 C: a, }- E C c c E C:0 0 %0' E a) 0 4) 0 0 0 0 I-- < CD 0 slsejjv 10# o 0V) U) CL cc 0 0 0 0 C: Cl) Po 0 CY) cn 0 cn (3) o).— CL 0 L. -c c: -r- E :3 C: 0 W�) 4-a CU cu M� -0 %+- n 4-- L- 0 U") 0 o ca 0 ca -- 0 L. 00 co 4-0 cu = C4e) N 4-1 M E (n > 75 CU CL > 0 cu 0 CL 2 Iv- 4) 0 8LO L- o X CY) CL a. 5 sluello 10# wo 0 CO E E C CU E = m -a F� c 0 o0 C) w 0 L-0 cu m .6.0 a. E 0 0 (A 0 -ni:3 0 C im G�0 16m Lm w00EE E CL 0 cc 4D CY) cn Lm Lm ? E CO E 0 0. = 'm -0 co Im 46-0 .. CL E E w 8 0 -0 2 E E 0 to 2 m 410 0 Lo TLO m L) CO 0 cu 0 w 10 CL IM CL 12 CL lw California Home Wednesday, October 15, 2003 M. ------------ i The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Contra Costa: 2003 Progress Report for Community Probation Program In the area below,please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL.YEAR 2002-2003 $8759622 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 Mate Funds Interest Non-JJCPA Funds ---------------------- Salaries and Benefits: (Help) 488,954 $0 Services and Supplies: (Delp) 18,320 0 Professional Services: (Help) 439622 0 Total Non-JJCPA Comm unity-Based Organizations: (Help) J.1 0 Funds: $1344,932 Fixed Assets: (Help) 0 0$ Administrative Overhead(Maximum=0.5%of State Funds): (Help) 3,879 J,.0 Other: (Help) J471653 $10 Fund Totals. $788,323 $0 $3449932 Program Total for 2002-2003Fiscal Year: $191339255 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003.Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program). program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME ­_7,w Completed Program: 202 Average Length of Time In Program: 183.00 Days In Progress: 93 PER PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES WNW~ Funds Expended Per Program $2,913.00 Did Not Complete Program: 94 Participant: Total: 389.00 Cly Progress Report Comments-Fiscal: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period,the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Progress Report Instructions: For each outcome listed in the table, report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS, CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS(01%,91 pct.,of 11percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE, CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures Outcome: Arrest Rate(All Arrests) Completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate1 Outcome pleasure Expressed as: A Mean or Average A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier L Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Ent at an Earlier Point in Time.Whatry is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Ent Time Period. Entry Approximate Length of Time in Days represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: Number of Program Participants 285 294 239 for Whore Results Reported: results For Program Participants: 0.44 29 ° 11 Mean/Avg. /° Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Program Participants for Whom Results 0 0 0 Will Be Reported Next Year: Number of Subjects in Deference 285 294 .,..... . 239 Group ------------ Results for Reference Group: F0.52 Mean/Avg. 5 % 27 Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Reference Group -------------- 93 93 93 SLjb*ects for Whom Results Will .. Be Reported Next Year: Outcome: Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Percentage Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Prior Program Participants in the to: Point in Time Point in Time County If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Ent N/A at an Earlier Point in Time,What g Entry is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standar • to Conduct of Program 9 d Participants During Following of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Time Period: Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: Number of Program Participants -------- 294 1294 1254 for Whom Results Reported: Results For Program Participants: 10 % 730 26 0 /o /o Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Program 0 0 F Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Number of Subjects in Reference 294 294 254 Group "www ------------ Results for Reference Group: 7 43 0 % Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Reference Group m"� Subjects for Whom Results Will 93 93 93 Be Deported Next Year: Progress Report Comments-Outcomes: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the results reported in the progress report, including program implementation issues; pending additional program results, supplemental evaluation findings(process evaluations, case studies cost-benefit analysis, etc.),the results of statistical significance testing, program changes emanating from the evaluation results. etc. Additional evaluation findings suggest that during the evaluation : period community probation participants experienced significantly fewer expulsions and suspensions from school, a reduction in drug an alcohol problems, improved attendance, and improved school performance when compared with the period before program enrollment. ............ ....... y ` S: et Return to Program Selection Screen California Home Wednesday, October 15, 2003 •::.i::'n::.:;:.,.!;is ive,!.:.;::.:'^;:::•:Y::;iw::nr::::;.:n.ii:•':i'."p:.........is Y:' :eJ ry - ••'•moi The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Contra Costa: 2003 Progress Report for Expand the High school Challenge Teen Program to Middle Schools In the area below,please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL.YEAR 2002-2003 $590,804 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 Mate Funds Interest Non-JJCPA Funds Salaries and Benefits: (Help) J468,636 0 Services and Supplies: (Help) 10,538 $0 Professional Services: (Help) 299500 0 Total Non-JJCPA Comm Lin it y g p�-Eased Organizations: (Help) 0 0 Funds: __ __ � __ _ __ JL_ $1307,506 Fixed Assets: (Help) 27893 0 Administrative Overhead(Maximum 0.5%of Mate Funds): (Help) 2,623 $0 Other: (Help) 39,943 �0 Fund Totals: $5549133 $0 $3079506 Program Total for 2002-200317iscal Year: $861,639 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003. Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program), program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME Completed Program: 193 Average length of Time In Program: 155.00 Days - ------------ In Progress: 141 PER.PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES -- Funds Expended Per Program $2,226.00 Did Not Complete Program: 53 Participant: Total: 387.00 - Progress Report Comments-Fiscal: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period, the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Progress Report Instructions: For each outcome listed in the table, report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS,CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS(10%,11"pct.,""percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE,CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures Outcome: 11 Arrest Rate(All Arrests) completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Mean or Average A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to, Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Time Period: Appr-oxii-nate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants, Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: ----------- Number of Program Participants 243 242 1209 for Whom Results Reported: 1- --------------- Results For Program Participants: 0.05 Mean/Avg. Mean/Avg. % 0.2 Estimated Number of Additional -------------- Current Year Program141 141 141 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: ------------- ---------- Number of Subjects in Reference 243 242 1209 Group Results for Reference Group: .32 F91111 Mean/Avg. 1.19% Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional ------------ - -------- Current Year Reference Group 141 141 141 Subjects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: JL— Outcome-. Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- Probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to: Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to conduct of Program g Participants Daring Following Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Time Period: Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants- Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: Number of Program Participants 0 244 243 for Whom Results Reported: Results For Program Participants: 2 % 19, _ % 10.004 Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Program 141 141 141 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Number of Subjects in Reference 243 244 243 Group . ---------- Results for Reference Group: 1 0 4 0.009 .....- �a /o Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current.Year Reference Group 141 141 141 Ubjects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Progress Report Comments-Outcomes: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the results reported in the progress report, including program implementation issues; pending additional program results supplemental evaluation findings(process evaluations, case studies, cost-benefit analysis,etc.), the results of statistical significance testing, program changes emanating from the evaluation results.etc. Additional data suggests Middle School Program clients experienced improved attendance and more academic success during the interventio period when compared with the period before program entry. —-- Return to Program Selection Screen California Home Wednesday, October 15: 2003 ...;...:::n;ni{;;.;{n• ,.vJ•.:i•:::v:;.;C:i,}::•i"r:j •.:yrs'' .:i u The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Contra Costa: 2003 Progress Report for Family Intervention Program In the area below,please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 $564,070 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 State Funds Interest Non-JJCPA Funds MMW Salaries and Benefits: (Help) J4861299 0 Services and Supplies: (Help) J,61652 $0 Professional Services: (Help) J.28! 0 Total Non-JJCPA Community-Based Organizations: (Help) J.0 0 Funds: Fixed Assets: (Help) $10 0 Administrative Overhead(Maximum=0.5%of State Funds): (Help) J21505 $10 Other. (Help) 38,127 0 $ Fund Totals: $561,748 $0 $0 Program Total for 2002-2003Fiscal Year: $5619748 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003. Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program). program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME Completed Program: 1.203 Average Length of Time In Program: 182.00 Days In Progress: 99 PER PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES Funds Expended Per Program Did Not Complete Program: 40 Participant: $1,643.00 Total: 342.00 Progress Report Comments-Fiscal: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Progress Report Instructions: For each outcome listed in the table,report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS,CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS("%,"11pct.,""percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE,CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures Outcome, 11 Arrest Rate(All Arrests) completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Percentage Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time It Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time.What is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Time Period: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: 11 11 11 1 ------------- ------------ Number of Program Participants 167 200 140 for Whom Results Reported, Results For Program Participants: 1 I-0.2 10.5 10. % % % Estimated Number of Additional ---------------- Current Year Program 99 99 99 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: ------------ Number of Subjects in Reference 167 200 140 Group ---------- Results for Reference Group: 10 % Estimated Number of Additional ------------- ------ Current Year Reference Group 99 99 99 Subjects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: ------ Outcome- Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- Probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Percentage Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time ............ If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of i California Home Wednesday, October 15, 2003 ''4:'::':.K:'v.':t'i::::a.y'y n::...:y.y::{•i::;:}::•rv,;..:.::..:.:.:::::::::. ..... .t ,. a.,:s,#:.3::z:::W::::t"' ;yt,^bu, _; _ ,:.,a tyrd ::t{.•..fes.:.:try rf..t.i.. ry.,.:': The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Contra Costa: 2003 Progress Report for High Challenge Tesco Program In the area below,please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUND' FOR FISCAL.YEAR 2002-2003 $590,804 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 State Funds Interest Non-JJCPA Funds' Salaries and Benefits: (Help) 578,356 $0 ---------- -------1161111111 Services and Supplies.* (Help) 19,094 0 Professional services: (Help) 29,500 0 Total Non-JJCPA 0 0 Funds: Community organizations. (Help) 379,502 Fixed Assets: (Help) Administrative overhead(Maximum 0.5%of State Funds): (Help) 27.62131- 0 1$ ---------- Other, (Help) $139,943 $10 Fund Totals: $671,024IL $0 11 $3790502 Program Total for 2002-200317iscal Year: $170509526 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003. Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program). program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME ---------- Completed Program- 76 Average Length of Time In Program: 143.00 Days l� 9 In Pro cess: 27 PER PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES 01E, ----------- Funds Expended Per Program $8,682.00 Did Not complete Program: 18 Participant: Total, 121.00 Progress Report Comments-Fiscal: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period,the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Higher funds expended per program participant due to High School program clients being active to Probation, whereas the Middle School program clients are non-probation cases, but preventative intervention services are provided. Budget overrun due to the number of High School Deputy Probation .► Progress Report Instructions:For each outcome listed in the table,report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS,CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS("%,""pet.,""percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE,CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures Outcome. Arrest Rate(All Arrests) Completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Mean or Average A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Historical Group Similar to Group Historical Group Similar to Group Program Participants at an Earlier to, that Receives Program Services that Receives Program Services Point in Time It Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Prograrn Participants N/A N/A Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time.What is the Earlier Time Period? 11 IL Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Time Period: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: I ---------------- Number of Program Participants 87 94 65 for Whom Results Reported: ------------- Results For Program Participants: 0.23 .318 5.11 ,1- �-1 1Mean/Avg. 1 1,11-1- - Mean/Avg. % Estimated Number of Additional --------------- Current Year Program 27 27 27 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: ----------- Number of Subjects in Reference 87 94 65 Group ------------- Results for Reference Group: 1.0235 % 12.55 Mean/Avg. p 1. 1- I I Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional --------------- Current Year Reference Group 27 27 27 Subjects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Outcome-. Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- Probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Historical Group Similar to Group to, Point in Time Point in Time that Receives Program Services If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time N/A Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? - to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of California Home Wednesday, October 15, 2003 ....::... .. .... ..... • The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Centra Costa: 2003 Progress Report for safe Futures-Summit Center In the area below,please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR.2002-2003 $317,808 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 State Funds Interest. Mon-JJCPA Funds Salaries and Benefits: (Help) 0 0 WNW Services and:supplies: (Help) 0 0 Professional Services: (Delp) 16,190 0 Total Non-JJCPA Comm Lin it -used Organizations: (Help) 0 0 Funds: Fixed Assets: (Help) 0 0 Administrative Overhead(Maximum 0.5%of State Funds): (Help) 19439 0 Other: (Help) 300,000 0 Fund Totals: $3179529 $0 $0 Program Total for 2002-2003Fiscal Year: $317,629 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003. Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program). program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME Completed Program: 7 Average Length of Time In Program: 182.00 Days In Progress: 26 --------- PER PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES ---- Funds Expended Per Program $7,941.00 Did Not Complete Program: 7 Participant: Total,, 40.00 Progress Report Comments-Fiscal: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period, the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Progress Report Instructions:For each outcome listed in the table,report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS,CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS(11%,11"pct.,""percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE,CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures Outcome: 11 Arrest Rate(All Arrests) Completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Mean or Average A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure'. Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to; Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or At End of Standard During or At End of Standard During or At End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Exit Program Exit Program Exit Time Period: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: Number of Program Participants 13 14 9 for Whom Results Reported: ---------- Results For Program Participants: 0.77 29 4.56 Mean/Avg. % Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Program F26 .2.6 126 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Number of Subjects in Reference Group 11 3 9 1 ------------- Results for Reference Group: 2.46 Mean/Avg. 0 % 175.22 Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional ------------------ Current Year Reference Group 26 26 126 SLO*ects for Whom Results Will , I Be Reported Next Year- Outcome.- Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- Probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage 11A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier *0 Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or At End of Standard During or At End of Standard During or At End of Standard • to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Exit Program Exit Program Exit Time Period'. Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: ----------- ----------- ------- ------------ Number of Program Participants 14 14 13 for Whom Results Reported: ------------ Results For Program Participants: 7814 0.15 Mean/Av % % g. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Program 26 26 126 Participants for Whom Results I I Will Be Reported Next Year: if ---------- -------------------- *NNW~ Number of Subjects in Reference 14 14 13 Group ----------------- ------------------ Results for Reference Group: 710 0.08 Mean/Av ........... g. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Reference Group 26 26 26 SUblects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Progress Report Comments-Outcomes: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the results reported in the progress report, including program implementation issues,pending additional program results, Supplemental evaluation findings(process evaluations, case studies, cost-benefit analysis,etc,), the results of statistical significance testing, program changes emanating from the evaluation results,etc. - ------------ ---------------- ------W ----------- ------------- ------------ - -------------- -- --------- ------------ ------------------------ .......... ...... ............... . ...... ... .............. Return to Program Selection Screen California Hume Wednesday, October 15, 2003 y ........... • The Juvenile Justice crime Prevention Act Contra Crista: 2003 Progress Report for SafeFutures-Ranch Aftercare In the area below, please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 $217,444 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 Mate Funds Interest Non-JJCPA Funds Salaries and Benefits: (Help) 213,066, 0 ---------------- Services and Supplies: (Help) 91060 0 -------------------- Professional Services: (Help) 10,857 $0 ............. .. ... Total Non-JJCPA COMM�nit -used�r (Help) 0 Organizations: 0 Funds: g p $1 Fixed Assets: (Help) 0 0 Administrative Overhead(Maximum 0.5%of State Funds): (Delp) 966 0 Other: (Help) 71353 0 Fund Totals: $2419302 $0 $143,873 Program Total for 2002-2003Fiscal Year: $385,175 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003.Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program). program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME Completed program: 44 Average Length of Time In Program, 180.00 Days IProcess: 107 PER PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES Funds Expended Per Program $2,201.00 Did Not Complete Program: 24 Participant: Total: 175.00 Progress Report Comments-Fiscal; Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period, the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Progress Report Instructions: For each outcome listed in the table,report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS,CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS(10%,99"pct.,""percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE,CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures Outcome: 11 Arrest Rate(All Arrests) Completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Mean or Average A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown ................. Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to, Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time It'Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time. that is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Time Period., Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: Number of Program Participants 60 60 59 for Whom Results Reported: -------------------------- Results For Program Participants: 0.3 Mean/Avg. .3�5 % 19 Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional ------------ ----- Current Year Program 107 107 107 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: ---------- ------------ Number of Subjects in Reference 60 60 59 Group : 1.11-1---l- I.- ------------------ ---------------- Results for Reference Group: 4.8 0 42 Mean/Avg. Mean/Avg. % Estimated Number of Additional --- ...... Current Year Reference Group 107 107 107 SUbjects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: OUtCOrrie- Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- Probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to; Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? Goa!for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Time Period, Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Reference Group: - -------------- Number of Program Participants 50 19 59 for Whom Results Reported: Ir''....-I --------------- - ------------- ...... -------- a Results For Program Participants: 28 % 0 0.05 % Mean/Avg. ........... Estimated Number of Additional ------------ ----------------- Current Year Program 107 1 Q7 107 Participants for Whom Results 1- Will Be Reported Next Year, IL -------J Number of Subjects In Reference 50 1 g159 Group ...... ------------------ ------------- 0.15 Results for Reference Group: 2 0 Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional ---------- --- ...... Current Year Reference Group 107 107 107 Subjects for Whom Results Will lie Reported Next Year: Progress Report Comments-Outcomes: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the results reported in the progress report, including program implementation issues, pending additional program results,supplemental evaluation findings(process evaluations, case studies, cost-benefit analysis,etc.),the results of statistical significance testing, program changes emanating from the evaluation results,etc. - --------------------- ------------------ ------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ ............. ........... ...... ...... . ......... M10V.......... Return to Program Selection Screen California Notre Wednesday, October 15: 2003 f. $ffvv' The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Contras Costa: 2003 Progress Report for SafeFutures-Volunteers in Probation In the area below,please enter program expenditures for each identified line item from each funding source incurred during Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 $909602 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003 State Funds Interest Non-JJCPA Funds Salaries and Benefits: (Help) 92,411 0 Services and Supplies: (Help) $15,535 0 IL Professional Services: (Help) 41524 0 $_ Total Non-JJCPA COMM Lin ity-Based Organizations: (Help) 0 0 Funds: ....... 0 J Fixed Assets: (Help) 0 0 Administrative Overhead(Maximum=0.5%of State Funds): (Help) J4.020 Othe,.. ;Helps 31063 0 $ Fund Totals: $1059935 $0 $0 Program Total for 2002-2003Fiscal Year: $1059935 Enter the number of juveniles who participated in the program during the fiscal year 2002-2003. Provide separate counts for those completed the program,those who were'in progress'as the end of the fiscal year(i.e., still'enrolled'in the program),and those who did not complete the program(i.e.,failed to completed the program and are no longer Enter the approximate average length of time spent in the program by all 'enrolled'in the program). program participants during the fiscal year. NUMBER OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME ----------- Completed Program: 16 Average Length of Time In Program, 182.00 Days In Progress: 4 PER PARTICIPANT EXPENDITURES Funds Expended Per Program Did Not Complete Program: 2 Participant: $4,815.00 Total: 22.00 8 Progress Report Comments�Fiscal: Provide any additional information that further explains or is important to the interpretation of the expenditures identified in the progress report.Also, if a modification was approved during the reporting period: the details of the modification should be provided in this section. Progress Report Instructions: For each outcome listed in the table, report the program results in the boxes provided. REPORT NUMBERS ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOLS,CHARACTERS OR WORDS WITH THE NUMBERS("%,""pct.,""percent,"etc.). Inclusion of anything other than numbers will result in the entry being"zeroed out." PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE TABLE,CLICK HERE FOR SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT GUIDANCE ON PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED OUTCOME INFORMATION. Juvenile Participant Outcome Measures 1 11 Outcome: Arrest Rate(All Arrests) Completion of Probation Rate Incarceration Rate Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Mean or Average A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Decrease(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Leasure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to: Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Time,What is the Earlier Time Period? Goal for Outcome Measure Refers During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard During or at End of Standard to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Participants During Following Program Entry Program Entry Program Entry Time Period. Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Program Participants: Approximate Length of Time in Days Represented by Results for 180 Days 180 Days 180 Days Deference Group: Number of Program Participants 16 18 18 for Whom Results Reported: Results For Program Participants: 0.31 11 10.22 Mean/Avg. _ Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Program 4 F 4 Participants for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: ------------------ Number of Subjects in Reference 16 18 18 Group . Results for Reference Group: 1.31 0 16.67 Mean/Avg. /° _ Mean/Avg. Estimated Number of Additional Current Year Reference Group F 4 4 SUbjects for Whom Results Will Be Reported Next Year: Outcome, Rate of Completion of Rate of Completion of Court- Probation Violation Rate Restitution Ordered Community Service Outcome Measure Expressed as: A Percentage A Percentage A Mean or Average Program Goal or Expectation for Increase(Relative Goal): Increase(Relative Goal): Decrease(Relative Goal): Outcome Measure: Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Magnitude Unkown Goal Expressed With Reference Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier Program Participants at an Earlier to: Point in Time Point in Time Point in Time If Goal for Outcome Measure is Expressed with Reference to Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Some Standard Period of Time Conduct of Program Participants Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry Prior to Program Entry at an Earlier Point in Trane.What is the Earlier Time Period? ' to Conduct of Program Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of Period of Time from Point of