HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01042005 - C105 FHS #ss Contra
y'e
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ®,' � . Costa
FROM: Family and Human Services Committee ��� � U�� County
DATE: January 4, 2004 ,0
SUBJECT: CCFuture Fund - Grant Process and Administration
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommendation:
ACCEPT the report from the Assistant County Administrator on the CCFuture Fund, as
recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.
Fiscal Impact_:
Funding from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)from the Renaissance Hotel is dedicated to the
CCFuture Fund. Allocations from this fund were approved during the 2004/2005 budget approval
process.
Background:
The Board of Supervisors created the CCFuture Fund in January 2004, and earmarked the Fund for
prevention programs serving children and families in Contra Costa County. On August 10, 2004,
the Board of Supervisors allocated $675,000 per year to Children's Mental Health and $225,000 to
the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative for each of the next two years from the
CCFuture Fund. Both programs were slated for major budget reductions in FY 2004/2005 and
support the mission of the CCFuture Fund, which is:
". . . invest in programs and services that are result-based, family oriented, collaborative and
available at critical points in the lives of children and families, thereby improving family
functioning and reducing the high cost of dependency."
The attached report presents proposed program descriptions, budgets and evaluation plans for the
Children's System of Care and the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence programs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNAT E:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): —
MARK DeSAULNIFR 'J N G101A
�1< .: „
ACTION OF BOARD ON 8' APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED ' O_,AER
!ER
AND REFERRED bacCto the amily and Human Services Committee the matter
of the $675,000 per year allocated to Children's Mental Health for the
next two years by the Board of Supervisors action of August -10, 2004, with
Alliance to be included in the discussions.
r V I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTECk ° - t�'3
JCi SWEETEN RK E�F THE BOARD OF
SEEP RVISORS AN ;COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact Person: Dorothy Sansoe(5-1009)
CC: CAO
EHSD
X.Y.
DEPUTY
County of Contra Costa
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 13,2004
TO: Family &Human Services Committee
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Member
FROM: Sara Hoffman
Assistant County Administrator
SUBJECT: CCFUTURE FUND--Referral#68
RECOMMENDATION:
1 ACCEPT the Contra Costa System of Care proposal for its CCFuture grant,
including the program description, budget and evaluation.
2. ACCEPT the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence proposal for its CCFuture
grant, including program description,budget and evaluation.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 10, 2004,the Board of Supervisors allocated$675,000 per year to Children's
Mental Health and$225,000 to the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative for
the next two years from the CCFuture Fund. Both programs were slated for major budget
reductions in FY 04-05 and support the mission of the CCFuture Fund, which is:
". . .invest in programs and services that are result-based,family oriented,,
collaborative and available at critical points in the lives of children and families,
thereby improving family functioning and reducing the high cost of dependency.
Following the allocation of the funds by the Board of Supervisors, CCFuture Fund staff
met with program staff to review each of the program's grant proposals, including budget
and evaluation plan.
Fiscal Accountability—For the System of Care,the Community.Development Block
Grant(CDBG)staff will reimburse expenditures based on documented claims, while the
County Administrator's Office will do so for the Zero Tolerance Initiative claims(for
both CCFuture Fund and general fund allocations).
Program Evaluation--Both the System of Care and Zero Tolerance have developed
comprehensive program evaluation plans which CCFuture staff believe meets the Board-
approved CCFuture evaluation criteria listed below:
1. What percent of families served achieved improved outcomes? What evidence is
available that indicates the funded program actually contributed to the improved
results families achieved? For example, is there an adequate explanation as to
why families did or did not achieve improved outcomes?
2. Did the program demonstrate a link between improved family results and avoided
county costs? What is the extent of the"avoided county cost"?
3. What was the nature and extent of collaboration/partnerships implemented by the
program? What was the benefit to clients? To program operations(cost,
efficiency, effectiveness, range of services,etc.)?
4. Who and how many were served by the program? What was the optimal level of
service provision that more often led to improved outcomes?
5. Were families satisfied with the services received? Did they feel respected? Did
they believe the services were tailored to meet their individual needs?
b. What data collection methods were used to collect the evaluation information?
Were they valid and reliable approaches?
7. How was/will program evaluation data be used to improve services,make them
more cost-effective and/or leverage resources?
8. How did the program contribute to improving the community outcomes identified
in the Children's Report Card?
Contra Costa System of Care
Vern Wallace, Children's Mental Health Chief and Pat Harrington, Children's Mental
Health Program Evaluator,will present the proposed program description,budget and
evaluation plan for the Children's System of Care (attached).
Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence
Devorah Levine,Domestic Violence Coordinator and Debbie Liu, Applied Survey
Research,will present the program proposal,budget and evaluation plan for Zero
Tolerance(attached).
Contra Costa System of Care
Proposalfor Contra Costa Futures Grant
Overview
Contra Costa County, located in the San Francisco Bay area, is the ninth most populous
county in California, with close to one million residents spread across 730 square miles.
At least 50 different languages are spoken and 100 countries represented. Children and
youth account for approximately 27 percent of the County's population. The number of
children and youth has increased from almost 212,000 in 1990 to over 237,00 in 1997.
Despite overall measures of economic well being, there are areas of extreme poverty in
the county. Between 1980 and 1990 54,000 residents (including 22,000 children) were
living in poverty. This poverty manifests itself too often in higher rates of illegal
substance abuse, homicide, school dropout, and child abuse and neglect. Mental health
workers in West County,for example, report an enormous need for grief and loss work.
Tareet Population
The population served by the System of Care Program are Contra Costa County residents
less than 22 years of age who have at least one DSM-1V diagnosis, and who are in out of
home placement as a result of a mental health condition or who are at imminent risk of
out-of home placement. These clients will receive a full wrap-around assessment, a child
and family team, intensive case management,and individualized and tailored care.
Services and Resources
Contra Costa County Children's Mental Health System of Care provides a wide range of
mental health prevention,consultation and treatment services to children,youth,and their
families. These services include Crisis Intervention; Institutionally-Based Care;
Community Treatment; and Intensive Wraparound Program. The current array of
services have incorporated key core values--child centered, community-based, and
family-focused—into every aspect of service delivery.
At the core of the service array is the Wraparound Program(See attached Fact Sheet) an
intensive intervention program for the most at-risk families. The Wraparound model
employs a planning process in which a family and a skilled team facilitator bring together
the important people in the family's life -- friends, relatives and professionals – in a
series of organized team meetings in order to address the family's needs and to create
specific strategies to meet those needs. The clinician may also provide home-based
family therapy if the family requests them. Wraparound focuses on the strengths, skills,
and talents of the family and other team members. It pays attention to the family's
cultural preferences, values and traditions. It creates services and solutions tailored to the
specific needs of the family.
Pry
This proposal to Contra Costa Futures is for the funding of sixteen FTE's to provide
Wraparound and outpatient mental health services to the population described above.
This will serve as a continuation of a greatly valued relationship between Contra Costa
Children's Mental Health and Contra Costa Futures beginning with the earlier efforts to
develop a common data base and now culminating in the ability to look at the impact of
all service delivered under Wraparound related to the frequency, intensity and duration
of service episode and positive outcomes for the child and family.
Policy and Governance
The System of Care Planning and Policy Council provides oversight for the System of
Care, helping to support accountability. Parent representatives and first-line
administrators from public agencies have assembled to engage in the highly coordinated
activities of setting and monitoring system-wide outcomes, evaluation, quality assurance,
and resource development.
Evaluation
This project will utilize a tithe-series cohort design to track the effectiveness of the
Children's System of Care treatment.The frust cohort will consist of children entering the
system of care between July 1"2004 and December 31"2004. The second cohort will
consist of children entering care between January 1'2005 and June 30t'2005, and the
final cohort period will start July 1"2005 and end December 31'2005. Cohorts 1 and 2
will receive a baseline assessment,and a 6 and 12 month fallow-up assessment. Cohort 3
will only receive a baseline and a six month follow-up because of the 2 year time limit of
the grant.
Assessment Overview:
The child(if age I I or older)and the parent/caregiver will undergo an extensive
(approximately 2.5 hours)interview utilizing structured questioning as well as
psychometrically validated surveys.Cather methods of obtaining information needed for
the evaluation include querying the Mental Health PSP database for mental health usage
and billing information,treatment provider information,and diagnostic information.
Information regarding out of home placements will be gathered from the Child Welfare
CWS/CMS database.
Measures:
Clinical(i.e., symptomatology)and functional(e.g.,how is the child doing in school?)
measures will consist of the following. 1)Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale
(BERS), 2)Caregiver Strain Questionnaire(CGSQ), 3)Child and Adolescent Functional
Assessment Scale(CAFAS), 4)Child Behavior Checklist(CBCL), 5)Delinquency
Survey(DS),6)Education Questionnaire(EQ), 7)Family Assessment Device—General
Functioning Scale(FAT)-GFS), 8) Family Resource Scale (FRS), 9)Family Satisfaction
Questionnaire(FSQ-A), 10)Substance Use Survey(SUS—AB), 11) Youth Satisfaction
Questionnaire(YSQ-A), 12) Youth Self Report(YSR).
Analytic Overview:
Clinical and Functional:
The scores on the follow-up measures will be singularly compared to the baseline scores
(typically using multiple linear regression)as well compared in a grouped fashion using a
repeated measures analysis. Planned covariates include client age, ethnicity, and severity
of mental illness. In addition,the different cohorts will be compared to determine if there
was evidence of an improving or maturing system resulting in better outcomes for
children and families. It should also be noted that specific attention will be paid to
changes in school performance and juvenile justice recidivism.
Fiscal:
Changes in living arrangements(e.g.,moving from a group home back to the family
home)will be examined in order to determine cost avoidance at the county and
state/federal level. Costs for living arrangements for the year prior to entry into the
system of care will be determined and will act as the baseline for this measurement.
Changes in mental health usage patterns will be analyzed in order to examine cost
avoidance. Medi-Cal eligibility will also be considered in order to determine costs
avoided at the county and state/federal level. Mental health for the year prior to entry into
the system of care will be determined and will act as the baseline for this measurement.
Treatment Provider:
The total number of clients(as well as those in this project)that each provider is carrying
will be determined.This will be compared to average caseloads in the previous year in
order to measure changes in productivity. The provider's total billable services will also
be examined in order to determine productivity. In addition,the average length of time
between client visits will be analyzed.
The number of clients(enrolled in this project)for each provider that show treatment
gains, drop out of treatment,exhibit worsening of symptoms and functioning or show no
change in outcome measures will be reported.
Summary
In summary,funding from the Contra.Costa Futures grant would provide Contra Costa
Children's System of Care with sixteen FTE's to continue serving youth with
Wraparound Services. These services would reduce out-of-home placement,
hospitalizations, involvement with the Juvenile Justice system and would increase school
attendance and participation. These services are strength-based,family and child
centered within a community,home,and school context. Outcome data would be
collected and submitted to California Futures in quarterly reports.
... ................................
s
a
UAUA
UA
a+
40
lot
� a
y
a
a,* o
d
fi
S o
io
�v. ad +�
4t, a �
F' 44 J p wt c °
CC Future Fund
Program Description
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
In February 2000,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors made a bold and laudable
declaration. of"zero tolerance for domestic violence."The Board subsequently in 2001
authorized the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative(Zero Tolerance), a multi-agency
system improvement effort,providing funding and establishing accountability criteria for a
variety of supports and services designed to reduce domestic and family violence and elder abuse
by breaking the generational, traumatic and progressive cycle of violence. At the same time the
Board sought legislative support(513425) for securing revenue to assure oversight and staffing
that would assist in bringing about system change.
.Zero Tolerance is a collaborative effort among many disciplines: the Superior Court, the
Sheriff's, District Attorney's and Public Defender's Offices, the Employment and Human
Services (including Children& Family Services, "Workforce Services, and Adult Protective
Services), Probation, Health Departments, and community service providers(STAND! Against
Domestic Violence, Elder Abuse Prevention, and Bay Area Legal Aid).
Activities
Zero Tolerance emphasizes system improvement activities centered on addressing
domestic/family violence and elder abuse early in order to reduce expensive crisis services
(savings in lave enforcement costs, court time, out-of-home placements) over time.
Zero Tolerance is a long-term investment in system change that intends to 1) increase safety for
victims and their children 2) increase access to services for people experiencing abuse and 3)
increase capacity to reduce domestic/family violence and elder abuse.
Zero Tolerance activities address the full spectrum of early intervention,response, and
remediation. Systematic approaches are concentrated at the misdemeanor level along with
increased support to address felony crimes, innovative uses of technology and targeted training,
including. Domestic Violence Court, Vertical Prosecution, Restraining Order Clinic, Co-
Located Domestic Violence Liasions in Ca1WORK5 offices, Intensive Supervision of Felons,
Centralized Entry of Protective Orders, and a Domestic Violence Database.
While Zero Tolerance consists of many comprehensive elements, for purposes of CC Future
Fund the initiative will focus its evaluation on a return on investment analysis of the Domestic
Violence Court.1 DV Court illustrates a cornerstone of Zero Tolerance's theory of change—that
batterer accountability,particularly catching abuse early at the misdemeanor level before
progression to felony DV crimes, is the key to improved victim safety. The Court also involves
the greatest number of partner agencies working on an integrated service.
We will report in summary form on all Zero Tolerance activities as well.
. 1
URANC ,
. it2 0 ,..{,f'1
DV Court is a multi-agency, misdemeanor post-conviction calendar. Participating agencies
include the Superior Court, Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, and STAND! Against
Domestic Violence. The Court, in session one morning per week,ensures offenders' attendance
at mandatory programs, improves access to services such as substance abuse treatment, acts
promptly when protective orders or probation conditions are violated, provides additional on-site
support to victims, and aligns Court activities across family, criminal, civil and probate sectors.
The regular and sustained attention by the Court to misdemeanor offenders, along with the
supervision and provision of services offered by Probation, has a profound effect not only on the
families served but also on the agencies in which these programs operate.
Results and Accomplishments
Annually, Zero Tolerance partners track measurable indicators to follow the County's return on
investment over time. Participating agencies are held accountable through specified performance
measures and service delivery is data-driven. Highlights of results to date include the
following:
CLIENT LEVEL IMPROVEMENTS
Victims and their children receive access to needed services
More victims and their families are accessing services due to inter-agency efforts. Zero
Tolerance partners work with one another to increase access to services for victims and their
children, as evidenced by the increase of referrals to various partner agencies.
Total Number of Referrals Made by ZT Collaborative Agencies to Other Partner Agencies
2003 1843 __ 02001
Ej 2002
160 s 02003
Nu 200
mb
er 8010 67
11
(i0 1 95
17 2 37 37 53
Q ..
AFS STAND CFS (by Victim
Workforc Workforc _ clinic) (by no
*Please note:Data were not available for the first two quarters of 2001. **Data not available for 2003.
Source: Partner Agencies Reported Performance Measures.
2 There have been numerous challenges involved in collecting data. Data is limited due to significant variations in
data sources and data collection and the absence of comparative data(i.e. the lack of historical or county data
available on domestic/family violence and elder abuse). We continue to refineladd to current tracking methods, and
are currently considering how to incorporate recommendations made by Applied Survey Research to improve data
collection overall.
3 Even though there are several ways in which victims and their children can access needed services,it is unknow:
whether they actually receive those services. Where agencies do track referrals,they do not track whether victims
and their children actually follow-up with those referrals. (Evaluation Report 2004) This is an area of data
collection Zero Tolerance plans to pursue as part of its efforts in strengthening evaluation.
2
The number ofCaIWORKS participants accessing services to resolve DV-related barriers
continues to increase. With the support of co-located STAND! liaisons Workforce Services staff
have dramatically increased their knowledge of the signs of DV and resources available. Since
the beginning of Zero Tolerance efforts, there has been a 1250%n increase in the number of
domestic violence waivers provided, with an 83% increase in waivers in June 2004 as compared
to March 2003.
Number of DV Waivers
2>
r�o
101
7S -
79
5 fj
i
25
n !
2001* 2002 2003
*Data were only available from July to December. Data represent the total number of DV waivers given to new clients,defined as persons who
have never received a waiver.
Victims feel safer and agencies are helpful
The majority of domestic violence victims surveyed by Applied Survey Research who had
encountered various agencies within the Zero Tolerance system indicated that their experience in
the Zero Tolerance System has been positive and that they feel safer.
P!ereeived Level of Agency Helpfulness to Victims (mean scores)
h
4l
A t
2
I
Law DV Agencies CFS Court Medical Staff Probation
Enforcemnt
Source:Client Interviews.
4 A waiver is valuable to a CalWORKS participant experiencing domestic violence because the participant is waived from the
work and education requirements in order to address domestic violence AND the state(18-24 month)and federal(60 month)
clocks of CalWORKS eligibility are stopped when a participant has a domestic violence waiver,therefore increasing the
likelihood of success in reaching self-sufficiency.
3
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Repeat offenses of domestic violence at 2.5%
In 2003 10 offenders out of 403 adjudicated in DV Court re-offended with more serious
domestic violence offenses, a 2.5%recidivism rate. The Court increased the average number of
cases on calendar(210/month in 2002 and 245/month in 2003) and the average number of bench
warrants issued each month (15/month in 2002 compared to 18/month in 2003). The Court also
consolidated 1,729 related family law, criminal and guardianship cases, ensuring judicial
efficiency and broader protection for victims.
Number of Misdemeanor DV Court Cases and Cases that Recidivated*
600 332 DDV Cases
500 435 403 DRecidivating
m` 400
E300 __ Cases
Z 200
00 i 16 13 F9
2001 2002 2003
*Please now Data represented reflect information reported from April of a given year to June of the following year. For example,data for
2001 is from April 2000 to June 2001.
Source:Probation Department.
Increased Coordination/Collaboration M a
Zero Tolerance partners work together both formally at "Improvements at the
collaborative meetings and informally to align their system and client level..,
efforts. While some of the partner d agencies worked demonstrate that there is a
P g goad level of alignment in `
together prior to the inception of Zero Tolerance, the coordination/collaboration
among the partner agencies
initiative has fostered initial or further development of
that did not exist before Zero
various internal and cross agency policies and/or Tolerance."
procedures/practices by bringing various agencies to
the table,creating opportunities for people to Zero Tolerance Evaluation
Report 2004,Conducted by
communicate and understand agency functions/roles. AptriledSurvey Research
FINANCING
General fund dollars have been a core allotment, at its highest in 2001 $2.3 million and today at
$1.2 million. Also, mirroring the fiscal challenges at the federal, state and local level, Zero
Tolerance has had reductions since its inception.
SB 4255 fees continue to support staffing,providing oversight and coordination for Zero
Tolerance. In an effort to mitigate the impact of budget reductions the Board allocated$225,000
5 As part of its 2000-01 legislative platform,the Board of Supervisors sought state approval to protect its investment of County
funds in the domestic/family violence and elder abuse system by establishing a funding stream for governmental oversight and
4
of CC Future Fund to Zero Tolerance. CC Future Fund will provide funding to support funded
Zero Tolerance activities as follows:
ZTDV Fiscal Year 04-05
c'C 1 uturc.. __.
Department Fund
. _ _ .
Fund S8 425*** TOTAL ACTIVITIES
Allocation
E ."' .. �-` "-� ^f�y��-� 5V&Elder Abuse Vertical j
{ Prosecution&Coordination/
District Attorney $352,411 $(,7,735 $0 $419,646 [DV Court
DV Court,Felony&
s Probation ` $446,72& �[�85.22,3F $o $531,95'7 � Misdemeanor Supervision '
DV Database, Entry of
FSheriff-Corner E 5140,302 [726.767 $29,557 96,626 Restraining Orders
Public De€ender j i $147,522 i?8,145„ $o $175,667 Representation/DV Court
Again t DEHSD/STANDI
Against DomesticI[
�
Violence $$3,97$ $1fi3O?2 ( $0 $100,000 CaIwORKS DV Liaisons
Bay Area Legal
Aid $8,398 FI,602 $0 $(0,000 Restraining Order Clinic
FSuperior Court $0 $0 F—. $0 - $0 DV Court
health Services 0 $0 F $0 F $0 F Physician Training
Elder—Abuse r Abuse y F--
i
j Prevention j $0 $0 $o $0 _ Cornmunity Forums
County _ Oversight and Coordination,
Administrator i $0 F $0 $150,000 $150,000 Evaluation,Fundraising
7
TtTAL $1,17 x,339 $�75,000 $179,557 $1,583,896
* Departments provide approximately$270,124 in additional funding to support.Zero Tolerance activities.
** CC Future Fund dollars were spread proportional to General Fund allocations.
*** Restricted for coordination and oversight,data collection,and evaluation.
Funding General Fund and CC Future Fund dollars)for Zero Tolerance is centralized into a
separate budget unit.6 These funds are overseen by the County Administrator's office[Zero
Tolerance staff]. On a quarterly basis, departments submit claims for reimbursement.
coordination of Zero Tolerance activities. In July 2001 the Governor signed into law SB 425(Torlakson),the"Contra Costa
Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence'Act,making Centra Costa the first`Zero Tolerance' county in California and increasing
maximum fee levels for certified copies of certain vital records.
b In addition,Zero Tolerance secured$475,000 per year in grant funding(supporting existing efforts,gaps in the
system, and planning). These funds are tracked separately.
5
TOLERANCE
..Scan 4�cac+.rr;eir;w�rsRt,a-,,;c:
A. Whether DV court individuals have lower recidivism rates than individuals who do not go
through court.
B. The percentage of misdemeanor cases that recidivate and progress into felonies, and whether
there is a difference in that likelihood between DV court individuals and non DV court
individuals.
All persons with a
misdemeanor DV related A. B.
incident Rate of Percentage of
recidivism? individuals who
SUBSET: recidivate with a
Persons whose felony?
cases go through
DW Court
B. Does reduced recidivism lead to system savings?
If the data extraction (phase 1) indeed affirms that DV court is associated with fewer cases of
recidivism, ASR will proceed to phase 2 of the research, which is to answer the question of
whether reducing recidivism leads to reduced system costs associated with processing
misdemeanor cases.
The costs within the proposed framework will include direct or core operating costs to the
system such as personnel to provide the intervention and indirect or secondary costs
experienced by the perpetrators, such as loss wages. However, there is currently no data
available regarding loss of wages or productivity by perpetrators;therefore, the first iteration of
this analysis will focus on direct core costs. These costs associated with processing a
perpetrator's case from arrest to DV court may include,but are not limited to, the following:
— Salary of police officers, attorneys,judges and other court personnel associated with the
misdemeanor DV court,probation officers;
— Treatment service for perpetrators (BIP, counseling, substance abuse, etc.); and
— Detainment(jail time).
As a first step to calculating cost savings, the figure below outlines how the total system cost of
processing misdemeanor cases can be calculated, for any given year. The spreadsheet in
Attachment A presents further detail about how the costs will be itemized.
8
toy�<�,_�
Figure 3 -Sample Calculation of Total System Cost to Process One Misdemeanor Case
Cost of a REPEAT Misdemeanor/Felony
Cost of a Misdemeanor Intervention Intervention processed through DV court TOTAL
processed through DV court System Cost
Total cost of one REPEAT misdemeanor/felony
Total cost of one misdemeanor intervention intervention per year
X Number of M interventions per year XNumber of REPEAT MIF inter onti ns per yea
System cost of M interventions System cost of M Recidivism
If the DV court is shown from Phase 1 of this research to be associated with reduced recidivists,
it is expected, as shown in Figure 4 below, that the system costs will decrease from year to year
as the number of DV incidences for DV court clients decreases. The savings result from not
having to process that perpetrator's case again. Please note that the costs associated with the
system's response to misdemeanor cases and the number of recidivating cases presented in the
figure below are hypothetical. These costs may have been higher after the start of the DV court
due to the cost of setting up the intervention.
Figure 4—Model of Changes in System Using Hypothetical Cost Estimates as a Result of
DV Court and Reduced Recidivism
Start of Zero Tolerance DV court intervention (Time 1)
$500,000 r
i425,000 1 1
$400,000 $400,000 - Presumed trend in costs without
$400,000
$350,000
9(y
S
$300,O00 v $300,000 Presumed trend in recidivism
�:
without intervention
izc—p P 4, p
3�sa rsou .;
r1 '1 k nl_ a s fi s .
$200,000
$200,000
r
i.. i�h�tl n�of
Total System Cost
} i Associated with
f ...s
11 �� ,�', � Processing Misdemeanor
N
$100,000 s 3 Cases
ti $ ""N""Number of Recidirating
$(j ...._' , .,, n.. Cases
1944 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
9
11LE,31ANCE
� f
hl e .
N
69 6R•
C4
N
0
N
6R �
t. 40*
o 0 o p cp p � r �qg
r �_ tp N N O `t O CI O- O N O L'3 O C] N Y:9 M r d3
ur ro
69 69 69 &9 64 fR 69 6+),. 69 vs W 69 69 6A 69 69 69 fA 69 64 69- 64 iID
O
6> VI
v v o o Cal 0
t'J GY C3 O N 'et �j
r� 64 vi 64 64 b9 EA 6+i rL'} C� 63 6446?4 64, 6fi 69 6H fA b r-
C !�
r~s � y
O
Ne
b
i QW5
iJ � Jb � Lo
x C ry � .-, x
ac x �n al
,,„..,550 C i$
cl
o > 4; C c;
'1.4i,
tz
o n w itlii ' C• ? �' t>. C
i! ccaw w c cr
� � U a�,I �
i s° : ao 0It 0,r
,
�t
o0 Z3
_
Q 11
d �. ! , 0 a: L'?. 4. aii pi cv "i! t`i� ct
v
w 7� o, o
m', � } r� �7 yrs;
iS5 € O'_ ` 1w ccI
Qi 1
f ! p m € tCn > v,i rs tts( c
rn E1 1
01
E0i O` 8i §; ' 91 C2 i" i
} I ) !I I' 1 sa try( 40 i
n' 3
ai, ci
�: v�
0- CL CLCJ �i
0 ! G C h-� C. £1
i N � t—roG� G iSSi 'IOU
� 1 f o CC) ro t�� m m ��s 47j ! i
cc
u1 CO ! to to u1! c0 }- h $�k o f c? rn p i t!5 D7 tri fn, t!? F�(� y
' r f of M' eY tp t 7'- tLl LTi t Y 6> f ,--' L�f M Cil t h. LTJ 1 LTi
@! m CZ M rot �i � ro � 1 . n� rs� o o� j p cr c
M
O
CV
61 69
� cs
iV
N 69
r
cl Cf r Y tC7 Iq ac c��'ppi Iii
tV N f'V 06 09 N
tLi
69 til 69 69 69 aq to 69 69 to 64 6H 6N
pp C.7
'b bM U') N N N N d C.
..� 64 to 04 6A 0 44 tori 69
Q�
m
r `
f4 ctl
VS C (A
m �
0 mn�
.-. y m
c
41 h 0
T ' o
c a: m,
m �s: l83 �; o �: es
f! c x
x: �• N
91
{ `,+! Ch
M
f I i 0
d CCs d i di (i a)
0 UJ to W Vi U}��
r
REQUEST 10 SPE M {
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrurn before addressing the Board.
Flame z Phone. ` 3 2
Address; —211Attar c City: 41
Please nate that if yrt se to provide your ad6ress and phone number, this information will become a public record of
the Clerk of the Board in association with this>meedhg.
I am speakingfor myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
Cl I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Cate:
My comments will be: 0 General El For 13 Against
C I wish to spew on the subject of: &*l 1
a. m4 - e105
Cl I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information