HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05152001 - C.68 FHS #41 CONTRA
. .. ...r_ .. COSTA
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY
FROM: Family & Human Services Committee
DATE: May 15, 2001
SUBJECT: Status Report on SafeFutures
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) $ BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACCEPT the status report on SafeFutures.
2. URGE SafeFutures staff, the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) and
service providers to continue searching for continuation funding for SafeFutures
programmatic activities.
3. Endorse ongoing discussions by SafeFutures staff, Probation Administrators, Workforce
Investment Board Youth Council and Mental Health Administrators to identify potential
funding and service partnerships among County departments and community-based
programs.
4. REQUEST the Family and Human Services Committee to review progress reports on
program funding sustainment efforts during July 2001.
BACKGROUND/REASONIS) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
On April 23, 2001, the Family and Human Services Committee considered a report from Mark
Morris, SafeFutures Program Manager, on the future of the SafeFutures project. For Probation
services (Ranch aftercare, Summit Center and VIP) grant funding for next year is ensured under
AB 1913. However, funding is not yet assured for the mentoring, family/school/community or
gang intervention programs. More information should be available within the next few months.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE —OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): MARK DESAUL IE R� D L D. GLOVER
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 15, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDE _OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ------
1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Sara Hoffman,335-1090
ATTESTED MAY 15, 2001
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
Steve Bautista,Probation Officer
Mark Morris ,DEPUTY
JSPAC(via Probation)
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (cont'd):
Steve Bautista, County Probation Officer, spoke on the value of the SafeFutures Program in helping
reduce juvenile delinquency. He also praised the partnerships that have developed through
SafeFutures with the school community, Probation, community-based organizations and others.
Supervisor Federal Glover thanked Mr. Morris for the SafeFutures efforts and expressed his support
for continued funding. It was agreed that Mr. Morris would come back to the committee in July with a
further report on the status of funding the program.
2 \
Contra Costa County SafeFutures
County Administrator's Office
651 Pine Street, 6th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
TO: Board of Supervisors
Family and Human Services Committee
FROM: Mark Moms
SafeFutures Project Director
DATE: April 17, 2001
SUBJECT: Status Report on SafeFutures
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Urge SafeFutures staff,the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC),
and service providers to continue searching for continuation funding for SafeFutures
programmatic activities.
2. Endorse on-going discussions by SafeFutures staff, Probation administrators, WIB
Youth Council, and Mental Health administrators to identify potential funding and
service partnerships between County departments and community-based programs.
3. Schedule updated progress reports on program evaluation findings and funding
sustainment efforts by July 2001.
Background
SafeFutures is a demonstration grant funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP). The grant is intended to enhance
the use of graduated sanctions in juvenile justice, through implementation of a system of
care and through systems changes such as improved interagency collaboration. The
grant has provided $1.41 million per year, for five years. (County match has been
$100,000 per year.)
We are now halfway through the fifth and final year of OJJDP funding. Program
operations began in 1996. The grant is scheduled to expire September 30, 2001.
SafeFutures has served over 3000 youth and. in many cases, their families. At any one
time,there are about 150 adult volunteers working with these youth, as mentors,tutors,
and staff assistants. In addition, interagency collaboration—between Probation,Mental
Health, schools, local police, and community-based programs—has been enhanced.
Following'are the key components of the SafeFutures grant as currently configured.
1. Summit Center. SafeFutures has contributed roughly $300,000 per year to the
operation of the Summit Center, a residential treatment program for boys with serious
mental health problems and serious delinquency histories. The SafeFutures contribution
enabled the County to combine funding with a like amount awarded through a California
System of Care grant,which in turn has been leveraged to draw down Medi-Cal funds.
The Probation Department has also contributed to funding, as has the County Office of
Education.
2. Mentoring. SafeFutures supports three mentoring programs. The focus of these
programs is to provide mentoring for at risk or delinquent girls. JSPAC's planning
efforts identified the need to enhance services for girls in the County, because girls have
traditionally been underserved in County's justice system programs.
❑ The MIND program,operated by the West Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau,
works with elementary (and recently middle school) girls in Richmond.
❑ The Step Up and Lead mentoring program is administered by Families First.
This program works with girls on Probation throughout the County.
❑ The third mentoring program operates as part of the Volunteers in Probation
program, discussed further below. VIP mentors serve both boys and girls on
Probation.
3. Volunteers in Probation. VIP was initiated at a time when the Probation
Department was stretched thin and was intended as a way to not only enhance Probation
services but also to strengthen ties and understanding between the Department and the
community. VIP volunteers provide a number of services, of which one-on-one
mentoring is but a part. In addition, VIP provides "internet mentors"to work with
incarcerated youth,produces newsletters comprised of contributions by youth in the
Juvenile Hall and the Summit Center, arranges outings for Probation youth, helps with
home "fix-ups"with selected juvenile probationer families, and provides office
assistance to various Juvenile Probation functions.
4. Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center(`Ranch") aftercare. The highest risk
times for minors in the juvenile justice system are often points of"transition"—especially
the point at which youth leave the highly structured, rehabilitative, setting of the Ranch,
and return to their home or community setting. The progress made with the youth while
in structured settings is often lost as soon as they were released. They resume delinquent
behavior and avoid returning to school. The Ranch Aftercare program provides
intensive supervision during the first six weeks after release, with an emphasis on
ensuring that the youth returns to school (or to an employment setting), remains drug
free, and remains free of new arrests. Our results have been impressive in this regard,
although data shows that after the period of aftercare supervision ends, chronic offenders
gradually begin offending again. The aftercare supervision period, in effect, provides a
2
relatively crime-free window of opportunity during which the chances for a successful
adjustment to community life can be strengthened.
5. Family/School/Community: Elementary School Prevention programs. Through
the West Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau, SafeFutures has placed"Neighborhood
Specialists" in each of three elementary schools in Richmond—Lincoln, Coronado, and
Nystrom. Specialists' duties include working with youth with problem behavior such as
truancy,misbehavior in class, or poor school performance, and the youths' caregivers.
In addition,they serve as links between the schools and community groups and
recreation centers, in developing after school programs and other activities. This is the
SafeFutures component most directly aimed at prevention. Although some of the youth
served have already committed offenses,the primary goals of this component are to
resolve problems that may foreshadow later delinquency, school failure, and substance
abuse, and to provide healthy and constructive activities that will help keep these young
people out of trouble.
6. Gang Intervention. SafeFutures' gang intervention efforts follow(per OJJDP
requirements) the"Spergel Model" for working with youth gangs. The Spergel approach
stresses multifaceted, interagency efforts to both suppress gang crime through law
enforcement activities and provide"pro-social"opportunities to encourage youth gang
members to end or reduce their involvement with gangs. This is perhaps the most
complex of the SafeFutures components. It entails a partnership between Probation,
Richmond Police Department, and several community based agencies, with participation
as needed by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Mental Health, and the
Juvenile Court.
Key features of the gang intervention program include a schools component, an
interagency case management component, and an outreach component. One SafeFutures
staff member works in West County middle and high schools, with individuals and groups
of students. His goals are to encourage inter-ethnic understanding and to keep gang
members or youth at risk of gang involvement in school. Interagency case management
entails work with identified gang members by an interagency group (called the "Core
Team"). The Core Team's members coordinate surveillance/supervision(especially by
the Probation Officer and law enforcement), counseling and case management by
community agencies(led by the Youth Service Bureau), and employment opportunities.
Based on review of police data in Richmond and West County, the Core Team focuses on
three youth gangs that account for much of the gang-related crime, especially violent
crime, in the area—the Project Trojans (primarily African-American),the"13s" and
associated sets (primarily Latino), and the Sons of Death(primarily Southeast Asian).
The outreach component also focuses on these three groups. Through outreach,
SafeFutures staff members spend time with gang members in their community settings,
and attempt to interest them in opportunities such as employment that may provide an
alternative life-style to gang activities.
3
Overall supervision of the gang intervention component is provided by the Gang Task
Force,which includes membership from several police departments,the City of
Richmond, Probation and Mental Health, and various community based organizations in
the area.
In many respects,this component works with the most difficult client population. The
youth are older ranging largely from 16 to 24, they often have long and serious records
of delinquent behavior, and they often have serious substance abuse and education
problems. These are the youth that our institutions have largely failed; "rehabilitation"
is difficult and costly. JSPAC and SafeFutures believed that the effort to work with these
youth is appropriate, however, both in an effort to provide individuals with another
chance in life and in the interests of public safety.
Evaluation
The ability or desire to provide on-going funding for various SafeFutures program
components will be premised in part on demonstration of their effectiveness. Potential
funding sources need to see whether the programs have been successful. In the final year
of SafeFutures, SafeFutures managers and Resource Development Associates, the local
evaluator, are making concerted efforts to provide full and detailed evaluations of the
various SafeFutures activities.
Earlier evaluations have been favorable, but limited. Providers have not always
submitted complete data on clients and services. Moreover, it is difficult to "prove"that
SafeFutures interventions have "worked," for a number of reasons. The impact of
prevention programs with young children is not likely to show up for several years.
Where improvements in our youth clients' lives do occur, those improvements may or
may not be the result specifically of SafeFutures' work. Many of the young people we
serve also participate in other programs and services. Without a full"experimental
design"(with youth randomly assigned to "treatment"and"control" groups), statistical
proofs of effectiveness are problematic.
To obtain as full a picture as possible, several evaluation activities are underway. Table
1 summarizes those activities.
Table 1: SafeFutures Evaluation Summary
Evaluation Activity Purpose/Focus Due
Process evaluation Observations and interviews by Completed:
Resource Development Associates See Appendix
regarding the organization and A
functioning of SafeFutures
Staff assessment of case status Informal case by case review of May 2001
the status and/or outcomes with
the most intensely served youth.
4
Interviews are conducted by
SafeFutures administrative staff.
The focus is to identify whether
there have been, in individual
caseworkers'judgments, changes
in underlying problems, behavior,
or attitudes of youth served.
Formal case reassessment This is a more formal and June 2001
thorough reassessment of cases,
comparing assessment data from 6
months or more ago with recent
reassessment information.
Resource Development Associates,
based on information/forms
completed by program staff, will
do the statistical analysis. As with
the informal case status
assessment, the focus here goes
beyond recidivism and looks at
problems such as substance abuse,
family dysfunction, etc.
Outcomes: recidivism and school Resource Development Associates June 2001
performance will link probation and school data
to ascertain the amount and type
of recidivism by SafeFutures
clients following their
participation in the program and
the attendance and academic
Outcomes: comparison groups Fk&vmuzr0eisl eh#.Associates July 2001
will develop comparison groups,
matched to SafeFutures clients in
age, ethnicity, gender, and other
background variables, in order to
see whether SafeFutures clients
have better outcomes regarding
delinquency and school
performance.
Staff Experience/satisfaction with SafeFutures administrative staff July 2001
SafeFutures will conduct interviews with line
staff in all SafeFutures
components, in order to prepare a
report (tentatively titled "View
from the Trenches") on staff
experiences, accomplishments,
and frustrations. This is also
intended in part as a staff
5
appreciation and recognition
report.
Client satisfaction survey The Urban Institute is conducting The status
an assessment of activities across and timing of
all six SafeFutures sites this report
nationwide. One part of this are
assessment is to interview clients, uncertain.
their caregivers,and service
agency staff.
On-going funding. Table 2 summarizes the status and direction of our exploration of
continued funding. Most of this effort is directed at finding funding for specific
SafeFutures activities, although additional funding may be needed to maintain the
coordinating infrastructure for certain activities, such as the West County"gang
intervention"effort.
Overall,there is a need for approximately $1,180,000 to maintain direct service
activities. (The balance of the SafeFutures budget, about$330,000, is allocated to
project administration and mandated evaluation and technical assistance activities. We
do not anticipate a continuation of these activities after the end of the grant.)
Although we are researching grant opportunities, we are also attempting to develop on-
going funding and service partnerships with County and City of Richmond agencies and
with school districts. Resource Development Associates, in collaboration with Dr. Abner
Boles, a technical assistance consultant, is preparing a draft report regarding potential
funding sources including Title IV-E, Medi-Cal Title XIX, State Healthy Families and
STOP, TANF, and WIA. SafeFutures staff is preparing a companion compilation of grant
opportunities, from public agencies or private foundations. These reports will be
completed this month. Meanwhile, conversations are underway regarding promising
funding streams and significant grant opportunities. The most promising opportunities
are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2: On-going Funding Search Status
Activity Current Allocation Funding Sources Status
Probation services: Total: $520,000 For next year, these Sort term funding is
Ranch Aftercare Aftercare: activities will be in the State budget
Summit Center $116WO$300,000 funded with State and is assured.
VIP VIP: $60,000 grant (AB 1913— Probation and
Schiff-Cardenas) mental health
officials are meeting
with SafeFutures
consultants to
discuss long term
6
funding possibilities
such as State Medi-
Cal Title XIX.
Mentoring Total: $140,000 Grants, such as No funding is
Step Up and Lead Step Up: $85,000 OJJDP's JUMP assured or found.
MIND MIND: $55,000 grants for We have had
mentoring conversations with
OJJDP about our
eligibility to apply
for JUMP funding.
Families First is
also pursuing
additional grants
from private
foundations.
Mentoring
programs may apply
for funds for
Probation clients
through AB 1913.
Family School Current funding is Youth Service No funding is
Community approximately Bureau staff have assured at this
$175,000, including discussed funding point. We are also
agency with WCCUSD and reviewing other
administration and with Healthy Start grant opportunities.
operating costs. programs in the In addition, we will
elementary schools. discuss carryover of
In addition, unused SafeFutures
SafeFutures funds (about
consultants are $150,000 for Contra
working with the Costa County) to
Youth Service continue activities
Bureau and Mental until Medi-Cal or
Health to prepare other funding
the agency for sources can be
Medi-Cal Title XIX made available.
funds.
Gang Intervention: Currently, about As with the See above; similar
case management $205,000 is Family/School/ situation to that
allocated to case Community described for the
management activities,we are in Family School
services, including discussion with Community
the staff member WCCUSD and component.
assigned to the working with the
schools. Youth Service
Bureau to prepare
7
for Medi-Cal
funding. In
addition, we are
reviewing the
potential for a
Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation
Grant, which could
support, even
augment, some of
our case
management
resources. This
grant is described
below.
Gang Intervention: Current allocation SafeFutures staff This activity is one
employment and job totals approximately have been meeting of the most difficult
preparation $120,000. with an ad hoc to find continued
group to address funding for. In
this service. This addition to the
group will planning and grants
participated with described,we are
the County WIB's contacting other
Youth Council in potential sources of
planning a strategy employment or job
for employment for training, such as the
high-risk youth, North Richmond
including offenders. SIT.
However, this
planning may
extend past the end
date for
SafeFutures. In the
short term, we may
be able to continue
some funding for
SafeFutures clients
with Dept. of Labor
"YEES" grant, if an
application for
extension of that
grant is approved.
(The YEES grant
will expire this year,
unless extended. It
was designed and
8
funded as an
augmentation to the
interagency team
developed through
SafeFutures.)
Gang Intervention: Not precisely If funding for Funding is
collaboration known. The collaborative uncertain.
infrastructure. collaborative resources, such as
structure includes staff and training,
administrative time cannot be provided
included in the other through other
gang intervention funding sources,
activities and special grant
administrative funding may be
support provided possible. We are
through SafeFutures reviewing a grant
administration. announcement from
the Robert Wood
Johnson
Foundation, to build
a collaboration
involving the
Juvenile Court and
substance abuse
agencies, to see
whether this could
be used to maintain
and expand the
interagency
structure
SafeFutures has
initiated.
9
Contra Costa County SafeFutures
Program Evaluation:
Phase One
Feedback Report
Prepared by
Resource Development Associates
February 28, 2001
............... .....
Contra Costa County SafeFutures Program Evaluation:
Phase One Feedback Report
!i. BACKGROUND
Under the SafeFutures project, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) provides approximately $1.4 million a year for five years to each of six communities.
SafeFutures assists those communities with existing collaboration efforts to reduce youth
violence and delinquency. SafeFutures also seeks to improve the service delivery system by
creating a continuum of care that is responsive to the needs of youth and their families at any
point that they have contact with the program. This coordinated approach of prevention,
intervention and treatment is based on the needs and assets of the targeted youth in each
community. It involves both public and private sector agencies, including health, mental health,
child welfare, education,police, probation, courts and corrections.
The three central goals of SafeFutures include:
1. The prevention and control of juvenile violence and delinquency in targeted areas. This
goal is met by focusing on three elements:
Reducing risk factors associated with delinquency;
• Providing a continuum of services for at-risk juveniles and appropriate immediate
interventions for juvenile offenders, and;
• The development of a range of graduated sanctions aimed at holding delinquent
youth accountable, ensuring community safety, and providing appropriate
treatment and rehabilitation services.
2. The development of a more efficient, effective and timely service delivery system
capable of responding to the needs of at-risk and delinquent juveniles and their families
at any point of entry into that system, and
3. Enhancement of the community's capacity to institutionalize and sustain the continuum
of services through the expansion and diversification of funding sources.
Z;:Ar ��W+er•�y,�r' .y,�_s.'^J-e- -<:a^.Sec�./--.:� - -rrt. :T=aRry-;7-�':?�;... r;iaa�.._s'�� -4..-�as:;•:: f4.a'i',:`:'�r.;::
Fs �4�3�V" :+�7�0[I`..� ��L ":e-i7.-'.=-""r�yC-'� ^4i-;?�'�+' *' s±r: r}„..,•iv'-.,�,:n'i:'i
The Contra Costa SafeFutures initiative, managed by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors and advised by a SafeFutures steering committee and the Juvenile Systems Planning
Advisory Committee, was built on community-wide planning efforts that began in Contra Costa
County as early as 1979. Highlights of Contra Costa's initiative include mental health services
for severely emotionally disturbed youth, gender specific services for girls, gang intervention,
and a true system of graduated sanctions that includes a coordinated aftercare case management
component. The overall initiative emphasizes family and school based services for at-risk youth.
Contra Costa County SafeFutures program components include:
Prepared for the Contra Costa Countv Safe Futures Program Page 1
By Resource Development:associates.
January,2001
1. Three Mentoring Programs:
• MIND;
• Families First/Stand Up and Lead, and
• volunteers in Probation
2. Six school based program sites:
• Coronado Elementary;
• Lincoln Elementary;
• Nystrom Elementary;
• Portola Middle School;
• El Cerrito High School, and
• Kennedy High School
3. OAYRF aftercare (intensive supervision and services for 45 days following release from
the Boys Ranch to the community);
4. Summit Center (a residential/ day treatment center for male juvenile offenders with
serious emotional difficulties); and
5. The Gang Prevention Program in West County (an array of programs based on the
Spergel model and including interagency case management).
In all of these specific programmatic activities, SafeFutures is intended to contribute to
systems change, to better interagency collaboration, and to a full continuum of sanctions in the
juvenile justice system.
'.e���...+...... !:�'.r.� i2• A'U'i Li kr�~d7.':...s�..{ '.vt,=�.• t' �:•...1.%-`= f�:,
...A.. .�...n*���'.. :�•:�::. �:;.-..s:.�:.nam',�":.3u�1��*"..�.".."s.'��a�iva-,:a. r�-.��5:�"..a`-.'c:�:�i�,:s:�t
In the fall of 2000, Contra Costa Courntys Board of Supervisors contracted with Resource
Development Associates (RDA) to provide a Program Evaluation of SafeFutures. This Program
Evaluation will examine activities and outcomes over the past four years and will lay the
groundwork for continuing the program beyond its fifth year. The evaluation includes three basic
tasks:
•Process evaluation and clarification or refinement of programmatic goals and strategies;
•Management of the Urban Institute data system and reporting feedback to the
SafeFutures managers; and
•Assistance with obtaining information and making decisions regarding future program
sustainability.
RDA agreed to provide SafeFutures in early 2001 with a brief feedback report, summarizing.
the key informant interviews and the "logic model" sessions with each program component as
well as highlighting individual program achievements.' RDA also agreed to produce
1 "A program logic model is a description of how the program theoretically works to achieve benefits for
participants. It is the `If--Then' sequence of changes that the program intends to set in motion through its inputs,
activities,and outputs. Logic models are useful frameworks for examining outcomes. They help you think through the
steps of participants'.progress and develop a realistic picture of what your program can expect to accomplish for
Preparedjor the Contra Costa Countv Safe Futures Program Page 2
By Resource Development Associates
January.2001
recommendations for appropriate changes such as revised program activities, staffing and
management changes, and changes in linkages with other agencies.
IL PREPARATION FOR "LOGIC MODEL" WORK
Before conducting the "logic model" sessions with SafeFutures program components,
Resource Development Associates (RDA) staff completed a series of tasks that provided
information essential to developing the most useful "logic models."
10.
r,1..:....�.. :..__ ,f::[t� i+3'y A, l'�-'�}itK1 Z^Lra'ifSiT 7i.+i(O�GLA'16fdc"
RDA reviewed all applications, evaluations, and progress reports relevant to SafeFutures. As
part of this process, RDA staff met with original local evaluators at the Institute for the Study of
Social Change to review their work and collect materials and data from their archives.
RDA conducted field observations and interviews with project directors and line staff to
develop an understanding of the mission of each individual program component and to secure
feedback about specific aspects of SafeFutures. To this end, RDA evaluators met with Probation
officers and program managers, school principals and a Healthy Start director, a coordinator with
Parks and Recreation and two police administrators, and staff and administrators of participating
community-based agencies. Over the course of six weeks, RDA staff interviewed a total of
thirty-four SafeFutures and partner agency staff. The interviews consisted of seven open-ended
questions and each interview lasted from forty-five minutes to an hour.
'x'«.., •-•spa- • w-- r �= r-s.-_ -�;,- .t+'-��-�*,�.-,�.,.r�,�'�' ,
The summary below generally follows the format of the interview. All people interviewed
were asked the same series of questions and were very generous with their time.and insights.
1. SafeFutures Obiectives as Defined by the Key Informants
Within the context of the schools, those interviewed identified improved grades, behavior,
and test scores and improved student/adult relations and peer relations as primary objectives.
They also noted that reduced truancy and increased ways that young people can take leadership
roles in their communities are important objectives. Reduced behaviors and values that are
contrary to school success were cited as another major objective. More involvement of primary
caregivers and other community members as volunteers and tutors were seen as essential to
moving toward reaching the overall SafeFutures goals.
Of the five school principals interviewed, most knew little or nothing of SafeFutures' goals
and objectives. However, many were familiar with specific SafeFutures staff working at their
school sites and welcomed their contributions to improving the quality of the school community.
All school principals interviewed were interested in the SafeFutures concept and believed in the
philosophy of the program. They felt that formal MOU's between SafeFutures and school
participants. They also help you identify the key program components that must be tracked to assess the program's
effectiveness."(from Measuring Program Outcomes:A Practical approach, United Way of America, 1996, page 38)
Prepared for the Contra Costa Countv Safe Futures Program Page 3
By Resource Developnent.4mociates
Januarv.2001
representatives and on-going information sharing about students would significantly help
SafeFutures reach its objectives.
Among the family objectives described by key informants, increased parent/child
communications and increased parent participation at community events and at school,
especially in planning on their child's behalf and goal setting, were cited most frequently. Those
interviewed also felt that youth need improved self-esteem, conflict resolution skills, and risk
avoidance capacity. Many key informants highlighted as major objectives greater family access
to community services and more resources to help families with basic needs. They also felt that
families need better problem solving and parenting skills and more positive role models in their
lives.
During the interviews, a number of community objectives emerged. Interviewees
emphasized that, above all, students had to feel safe in their school and community. In
relationship to this overarching objective, they said they are working hard for reducing risk
factors overall, for reducing youth involvement in the juvenile justice system, and for decreasing
youth gang involvement and their use of drugs and alcohol. The key informants also highlighted
increased employment and training options as major objectives of SafeFutures work. Several
respondents cited improving youth and adult leadership skills so that more community members
can become advocates for youth in the community.
The key informants identified reduced gang and crime involvement as the major Core
Team objectives. They see these as being reached most effectively by attaching youth to
supportive institutions(school and employment) and by intensified law enforcement supervision.
2. Youth Served byLafeFutures as Described by Key Informants
When asked to provide a profile of the participating youth, every key informant focused on
the deficit qualities of the youth involved in SafeFutures. All those interviewed described the
youth and their family as follows:
The youth are between the ages of 5 and 21. They display poor academic
performance and are involved with the juvenile justice system. They are
truant, sexually acting out, and emotionally immature for their age. They
have anger management issues, low self-esteem, lack of respect for authority,
and lack of impulse control. They frequently display attention-getting
behaviors. These youth are primarily from low income, multi problem
families who are headed by single parents or grandparents who are
unemployed or unskilled laborers. In the home there are often mental health
issues, domestic violence or unrest, substance use or abuse, and unstable
housing conditions.
This may be an artifact of the way in which the interview questions were asked, the
interview context, or the key informants' perceptions of the interviewers' expectations. For
example, the key informants may have understood the question to be "What youth characteristics
resulted in their referral to SafeFutures?" However, there are indications that the emphasis on
deficits is pervasive. For example, after a key informant told one interviewer that 30% of the
Preparedjor the Contra Costa Count+Safe Futures Program Page 4
By Resource Development.-1 uociates
January,2001
youth in his.program came from single parent families, she pointed out that that meant that 70%
came from two-parent families.
It is troubling that twenty-six people involved in the program were unable to speak
positively of the children and families in SafeFutures. Modem social work techniques all require
that those providing services develop case plans based on personal and community assets of
those being served as well as deficits.
The few positive descriptions of the young people were given to illustrate how well a
program was working. For example, one key informant noted that none of the girls in one
program had become pregnant as compared with girls not in the program. Others involved in the
mentoring program components proudly stated that many youth participants chose to stay in the
program longer than expected because they liked what the program gave them. For instance, the
youth enjoyed going on outings, especially to the mentor's homes to see other ways the people
live.
3. Issues Faced by Youth in SafeFutures Programs as TJescr►'bed by Key Informant
The twenty-six people interviewed listed many issues faced by youth in SafeFutures'
programs, all of which are common in almost any low-income, multi-ethnic community in the
country.
The family-related issues included:
•members in unstable, low-wage jobs;
•constant financial problems;
•too many parents in prison or jail;
•poor housing,
•lack of communication between parents and children;
•lack of parent awareness and involvement in treatment planning for their child;
•dissolution of family relationships;
•domestic violence;
•mental health issues;
•language barriers;
•cultural barriers; and
•lack of parenting skills.
Similarly, the key informants identified school issues such as:
• dilapidated school facilities;
• a lack of available school counselors and Neighborhood Youth Specialists;
• high truancy rates;
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 5
By Resource Development Associates
January,2001
• low test scores;
• lack of parent.awareness and parent involvement in the school activities;
• gang related activity;
• school violence;
• teacher with totally inadequate classroom management skills; and
• high rates of turnover of school principals, teachers and other staff.
The list of community issues included--
high
ncluded:high crime;
• high unemployment;
• limited community resources;
• limited job training;
• limited culturally competent mental health services;
• excessive gang violence;
• too much substance abuse and easy access to drugs and alcohol;
• poor housing, lack of available services to the monolingual population;
• too many gang turf issues;
• lack of collaboration and coordination of existing community services;
• hostility and lack of understanding between many ethnic groups; and
• overwhelming language/cultural barriers to accessing services.
4. Ka Informant Views of Resources Used by SafeFutures Programs& Resources Needed
The key informants listed the following agencies and/or program as resources utilized by
their agencies to meet SafeFutures goals and objectives (Several are SafeFutures partners, e.g.
the Juvenile Probation Department):
• Familias Unidas,
• Coronado YMCA,
• Healthy Start,
• Juvenile Probation Department,
• Richmond Police Department,
• Battered Women's'Alternatives,
• Adult Education,
• West Contra Costa Unified School District
• County Office of Education,
• churches, temples, and other parts of the Faith Community, and
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 6
By Resource Development. ssociares
Ja uarv.2001
• a variety of county services including health, welfare, and housing assistance.
In addition, some key informants questioned whether SafeFutures agencies are using these
resources tolhe fullest extent possible.
Most key informants said that the community needs safe space for youth, safe havens that
are free from gang turf issues. One of the most frequently cited additional resource needed was
a teen center. Other resources recommended by key informants were:
• Establishing mobile mental health outreach to make sure that the neediest people
have access to mental health services;
• Age-appropriate and culturally appropriate mentors;
• Relevant employment opportunities (recommended primarily by those involved in
finding employment for SafeFutures participants);
• Additional counselors, case managers, and Neighborhood Resource Specialists
(recommended primarily by those involved in front line jobs, as opposed to
administrative positions); and
• Information about which components of SafeFutures work best and where the
strengths and weaknesses of the SafeFutures program lie.
5. How Key Informants View the Data Collection Process
The Gang Outreach Workers,Neighborhood Resource Specialists (NRS), Probation officers,
case managers, and program managers interviewed reported that SafeFutures uses the following
data collection instruments in its school-based and street outreach work (The Summit Program,
OAYRF, and the mentoring programs use data collection instruments that are unique to their
programs.):
• Intake/Assessment Form ("long form"): This form is used for youth that
come into SafeFutures programs through the schools and the Core Team.f It is used
to collect data about a youth's identity and demographics, plus a battery of over 80
questions about their household, school, employment, offspring, and "risk and
resiliency factors". The same form is used during the periodic reassessment
process, at 6-month intervals, if the youth client is still receiving services.
Several versions of this form remain in use. Refinements to the forms have been
made so that essential programmatic data might be captured accurately and
consistently from the different service agencies. Each service agency uses a slightly
different form. In some of the agencies, a specific reassessment form exists. It
poses the screening questions in a slightly different way. Staff persons at Youth
Service Bureau and Juvenile Probation conducted (most assessments 1 1550 of
1800—.
2 The Core Team involves probation officers from OAYRF, staff from Youthbuild and Opportunity West,
the Gang Outreach Workers, and a Program Manager from Youth Service Bureau. No representatives from the
WCCUSD, police department, or the Probation office for West Contra Costa County are part of the team.
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 7
By Resource Development Associates
January,2001
Consent forms: Each agency has a form that parents or guardians read to learn
about the agency and services that will be provided to the youth The guardian's
permission must be obtained so that the youth's case management data may be
shared with the Urban Institute for the national evaluation. The guardian is clearly
given the option to withhold permission. However, only 500 of the 1900 consent
forms submitted to the SafeFutures Director's office indicate that consent for
services were given.
• Short intake form: This form is used for youth that come into SafeFutures
programs through street outreach workers. It includes about half of the assessment
questions used on the full Intake Assessment/Reassessment form.
• Client Contact logs: These logs are used to collect data about direct
services to a youth and his/her family. The logs serve also as a record of staff
persons' time spent with or on behalf of clients and specify the type of services
rendered. The YSB, OAYRF, and the mentoring programs have similar yet distinct
paper forms for collecting the client contact information. This complicates efforts
to insure consistency of data coding during data entry.
• Community mobilization logs: These logs are used to collect data about
SafeFutures activities that involve engaging the broader community to reduce
delinquency and prevent violence.
• Group attendance logs: Gang Outreach Workers and Neighborhood
Resource Specialists submit write-ups of community meetings they organize,
including agenda, minutes, and attendance. These youth workers also submit
attendance lists for regularly scheduled group meetings and for one-time activities
and excursions.
The youth workers and the Neighborhood Resource Specialists are responsible for
completing the above forms in a timely manner and sending them to Chuck Stephenson at the
Youth Services Bureau for quantitative review. Onna Alexander at Youth Services Bureau is
responsible for the qualitative review of the case management and providing the youth workers
with supervision regarding their case plans. These data are ultimately submitted to the
SafeFutures Director's office monthly for final review. They are then submitted to the Urban
Institute,the evaluators of the SafeFutures program nationally.
Forms reflecting events and services in a given month are due to the Director's office by
the 5`h of the following month. All forms received at the SafeFutures Director's office are
examined for completeness. Any incomplete forms received from YSB are returned to YSB.
The Director's office is responsible for data entry.
At six-month intervals, queries are performed in the database in order to create a dataset
for the national SafeFutures evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute. UI provides feedback
in the form of questions and continents. This feedback has revealed a number of flaws in the
areas of data encoding and data validation. The SafeFutures Director's office, with assistance
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 8
By Resource Development.-Issociates
January,2001
from the data entry contractor and from supervisors in the service agencies, responds to UI with
explanations and/or with re-submissions of portions of the data set.
The youth workers as well as Youth Service Bureau staff report several major problems
regarding data collection and processing. On numerous occasions, completed paper forms have
been lost somewhere between the caseworkers and the SafeFutures Director's office. Forms
must be photocopied anew and be re-submitted
For some components of the SafeFutures project, some of the data that is requested on
the common Assessment form is not age-appropriate. Inclusion of these questions on the data
collection form gets in the way of gathering the other useful pieces of information about the
youth being served
Many key informants feel that there is too much data collection paperwork and the
completion of it seriously limits the time staff could use to work with the youth. This view is
linked to the frequent observation that there has never been any feedback from the data analysis.
Absent this.feedback, it not surprising that many staff_ feel there is little pt--pose to all f-he data
collection.
The youth workers and Youth Service Bureau staff suggested that the forms be
redesigned so that they are more age-appropriate and more user friendly. Logical inconsistencies
and ambiguities need to be corrected. Page formatting that group questions together could be
better used to help staff move more efficiently through the data collection process. For example,
responses to some questions about a youth's status (e.g., not currently enrolled in school, not a
teen parent,etc.)make the subsequent questions moot.
Several key informants suggested that data be maintained in a central location to reduce
the loss of data and to facilitate data analysis and feedback based on that analysis. If computers
can be provided, computer training will be needed to make sure that the equipment actually
helps reduce the workload on line staff. Computer-based data collection instruments might
incorporate logical "branching" so that the Assessment form or the Contact Log form, as
presented on the computer screen, shows precisely those "user-friendly" characteristics that are
lacking in the paper forms. Development and deployment of a single-service-agency version of
the database at YSB might go as far as enabling youth workers—or at least their supervisors —
to enter their own data and to run their own caseload and service statistics reports. This would
reduce the perceived paperwork burden and also deliver useful, immediate feedback from the
service and assessment records.
6. Key Informant Descriptions of the Process of Creating Treatment Plans
Treatment plans are developed in different ways throughout the SafeFutures program
network. In the school-based. SafeFutures programs, the child's parent, the Neighborhood
Resource Specialist, a representative from the school, and the child design the treatment plan
together. In the street outreach programs, formal treatment plans are not developed. The
rationale is that, since the youth in this program are older and are under no authority to
participate, an informal relationship between the street outreach worker and youth is sufficient.
Only a short intake form is completed in the street outreach program and it is completed after at
least three contacts have been made (This is also described as "three interventions."). The
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 9
By Resource Development.lssociates
January.2001
treatment plans used by the Core Team are developed by the probation officers. They have
access to school and probation records. YouthBuild utilizes an application form that includes a
review of school transcripts and information from collateral contacts. Treatment plans based on
the application and the elements of each plan are clarified with input from the youth involved
and any significant others.
"Logic'111. The .• -
Between October 9`h and December 31"`, RDA staff held three logic model sessions with
administrators and staff of SafeFutures programs. In addition, a logic model for the mentoring
programs was developed based on the interviews with the key informants that relate to those
programs. The logic models are attached.
The Summit Center logic model session involved twelve supervisors, clinicians, and
probation staff over a two-hour period Participants first listed the main groups involved in the
program: boys between 12 and 18 years of age; parents; Volunteers in Probation and staff of
substance abuse treatment programs; the Probation Department; the County Office of Education;
and the County Department of Mental Health as the lead agency. The key activities or strategies
in which these groups are involved included:
• intake screening with family input and a commitment to cooperate;
• individual and family therapy;
• group sessions on issues such as cultural values and violence,victim empathy;
• a specialized education program within the school department;
• a student government group and community meetings; and
• outings(pro-social activities), a newspaper, computer training, and mentoring;
These activities or strategies were then linked to intermediate outcomes. For example, the
outcomes of screening at the point of intake and therapy were defined as engagement of the
family in wraparound services and parent involvement in program groups..The intermediate
outcome attached to individual and family therapy was that a boy in the program would
acknowledge that he had violated the law (violation acknowledgement) and this would lead to
the youth being drug free and willing and able to follow directions and rules. Ultimately, the
program would help youth to become employed, law-abiding, and a contributing member of
society.
The School/Family/and Community logic model session involved six staff members from
that SafeFutures component over a two-hour period As with the Summit Center process
described above, participants identified the key groups involved in this aspect of SafeFutures as
the following: elementary school students in West Contra Costa Unified School District; .the
broader community composed of the parents of these students, Kaiser Hospital, and Planned
Parenthood; public agencies including the School District (Lincoln, Nystrom, and Coronado
schools), law enforcement and the courts, the City of Richmond's Park and Recreation
Department, and the County Mental Health and Social Services Departments; and the Youth
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 10
By Resource Development Associates
Jmnua?v.2001
Service Bureau as the lead agency. The key activities or strategies in which.these groups are
involved included:
• outreach, intake and assessment and developing a treatment plan;
• tutoring;
• individual and group counseling;
• conflict mediation;
• group social and recreational activities;
• community mobilization; and
• providing resource and referral information.
These activities or strategies were then linked to intermediate outcomes. For example,.the
tutoring outcomes were that the students would show greater interest in their lessons and in
completing them. Based on these outcomes, students would improve their attendance, increase
their attention spans, and improve their academic performance. Ultimately, this would lead to
graduation and increased self-esteem.
The four-hour Core Team/Aftercare logic model session/retreat involved seventeen
members of the team, including managers and staff from community-based organizations and the
Probation Department. Participants identified the key groups involved in this aspect of
SafeFutures as the following: members of the broader community (parents, Battered Women's
Alternatives, FamiIias Unidas, YEES, local businesses, International Institute of the East Bay,
and Opportunity West); public agencies including local, city and county law enforcement/ legal
system; the City of Richmond (Adult School, Parks and Recreation Department, Employment
and Training Services, and Public Works), the Contra Costa County mental health & social
services departments, the West Contra Costa Unified School District, and the County Office of
Education; and Youth Service Bureau as the lead agency. The key activities or strategies in
which these groups are involved included:
• outreach, intake& assessment and providing information, resources, and referrals;
• early interventions such as peer conflict mediation and life skills workshops;
• more early interventions such as recreation and youth-initiated activities;
• intensive interventions such as probation supervision, counseling, and support groups;
• more intensive interventions such as resume writing and job searching.
These activities or strategies were then linked to intermediate outcomes. For example, the
probation supervision, counseling, and support groups outcomes were linked to increased respect
for authority figures, and sustained negative drug testing. The increased expectations outcome
was linked to "reduce risk factors in youths' lives", and "youth adopt new belief systems.
Ultimately, these activities and outcomes would lead to "youth becoming productive members of
society reaching adulthood with " youth leading stable lifestyles with respect to their housing,
employment, attitude, and being drug free, and the community becoming safer."
The Mentoring logic model was drawn from extensive interviews with adult participants in
the SafeFutures mentoring programs. Participants identified the key groups involved in this
aspect of SafeFutures as the following:
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 11
By Resource Development.associates
January.2001
a youth (70 mentoring youth, ages 6-14, in MIND; 50 girls, ages 12-18, who are currently
on probation in Step Up and Lead; 30 girls and boys, ages 12-18, in Volunteers In
Probation);
❑ community members including parents,
❑ Kaiser Hospital,
❑ Planned Parenthood,
❑ the Coronado YMCA;
❑ public agencies.
The lead agencies were identified as the Youth Services Bureau(MIND), Families First (Step
Up and Lead), and Contra Costa County Probation Department(Volunteers in Probation). The
key activities or strategies of each mentoring program is as follows:
• MIND: formal and informal counseling; individual and group recreation and social
activities; educational and motivational events; one-on-one mentoring, exposure to
higher idea; and work with the school site teams;
• Step Up and Lead: provide information, resources and referrals; establish and support
positive relationships for young girls involved in the juvenile justice system; weekly one-
on-one mentoring for a minimum of one year in such areas as educational/vocational
skills,mental and physical health , self confidence and self esteem; outings, social events
and activities; tutoring, counseling, vocational and literacy training
• Volunteers in Probation: one-on-one mentoring; assist-A-Probation Officer; tutoring
and newsletter-based activities Juvenile Hall; internet mentoring; monthly meetings with
speakers on such topics as drug use and younger girls daring older men; home
Supervision; and Circle of Care
These activities or strategies were then linked to intermediate outcomes.
Individual . • Highlights
RDA has just begun analyzing data in order begin the program outcome evaluation.
However, the following highlights were drawn from the key informant interviews and should be
noted:
• None of the girls in SafeFutures programs got pregnant while in the programs.
• Community linkages are providing helpful opportunities for family members such as
connecting them with outlets for free food during the holidays.
• Some gang members were able to get out of the gangs and into more successful activities.
• Some program participants return as program staff after finishing the program.
• Youth in mentoring programs are exposed to computer skills training that can help them
get work in the future.
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Progron Page 12
By Resource Development Associates
January,2001
• Youth in the mentoring programs benefited from visiting mentors' homes because they
were able to see how"successful" people live.
• Many of the SafeFutures program staff spend a lot of time working to bridge cultural
gaps between youth.
• SafeFutures programs give many kids openings to meaningful work they can do to
support their families, work that replaces drug dealing and other illegal activities.
• Even when a SafeFutures program participant is arrested, they often keep in touch with
the community-based program they have been working with.
• Six program participants registered to vote.
• Youth in SafeFutures really enjoy doing new things with their time.
MajorV.
Throughout the interviews, a genuine sense of cone^: for the SafeFutures young people and
their families and a deep commitment to supporting and guiding them was evident. Key
informants understand profoundly the horrible conditions faced by these youth and their families
and the enormous challenges they need to overcome. Key informants also had a firm grasp of the
challenges faced by the public and non-profit agencies that are working to change conditions and
support youth and families. Six major issues emerged out of the process of developing logic
models with the SafeFutures components described above:
• Lack of communication and collaboration between all agencies involved: Though there
is evidence of reactive collaboration such as working together during crisis moments,
there was little evidence of proactive collaboration.
• Lack of consensus on use of the Spergel Model: This multi-strategy approach to reducing
gang violence involves delivering five core strategies through an integrated and team-
oriented problem-solving approach. Central to the gang suppression core strategy is that
community-based agencies and local groups must collaborate with juvenile and criminal
justice agencies in the surveillance and sharing of information under conditions that
protect the community and the civil liberties of youth. This requires very high levels of
trust and a shared philosophy and vision. While it is noted that relationships between the
community based program, police and probation have developed and in some instances
are better than they were before SafeFutures began, there is still much work to do in this
area to create a seamless system to benefit the community.
• Lack of responsive, available local mental health services for target population
families: Many community-based agency and school staff see serious and persistent
mental health problems among many community residents and an inability on the part of
those residents to secure mental health services for themselves. These community-based
agency and school staff seem to lack the resources necessary to establish workable
connections between those in the community who need mental health services and
county mental health service providers. This is unfortunate in light of recent Federal
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Progrmn Page 13
By Resource Development Associates
January,2001
funding to create of comprehensive system of care for seriously emotionally disturbed
children.
• Roles. and responsibilities need clarification. Responsibilities of all SafeFutures
partners need to be well—defined and coordinated Responsibilities of the Neighborhood
Resource Specialists need to be specific and shared with the school staff.
W. Recommendations
Based upon RDA's observations, interviews and review of the data, we are making the
following preliminary recommendations
A. Analyze data and provide feedback to staff: There continue to be major problems
with data collection and thus with the ability to adequately analyze the outcomes to
this effort. Many of the people interviewed were interested in learning more about
what the data has to say. To our knowledge there has been no regular feedback -
mechanism whereby service delivery people had the opportunity to reflect on the data
and discuss what it was saying. Having the top managers of each of the programs
regularly and consistently use the data in face-to-face sessions with staff teams should
help to solve many of the problems of data collection. The opportunity to discuss the
results of the data and to talk about what it means in light of service delivery should
also help staff understand the importance of all of the paperwork that they are
responsible for maintaining. Utilizing the data as a management tool to monitor how
service delivery staff are spending their time would also reinforce the importance of
data collection. Until these steps are taken it is doubtful that the quality of data
collection will improve.
B. Enhance the data management system:
1. Refine the forms and adjust for age-appropriateness, efficiency and ease of use;
2. Increase clerical staff time to provide support for timely submission of data;
3. Require that all case managers show evidence of providing at least 60% percent
of their time in direct client contact;
4. Establish quality assurance monitoring, utilizing anecdotal records as well as
accumulated data analysis;
5. Provide regular data feedback and analysis to staff to assist in effective program
planning and quality service delivery
C. Formalize and clarify case management standards: Clarification about the goals
and content of case management goals and role expectations. More clearly articulate
the role of the Neighborhood Resource Specialists at the school sites and'formalize
their relationship. For SafeFutures School/Family/Community and CoreTeam
components, the approach needs to be more clearly specified and grounded in the
routine needs of youth and their families to enhance the likely impact of this
intervention strategy.
Prepared for the Contra Costa Countv Safe Futures Program Page 14
By Resource Development.-Woctates
January,2001
D. Renew and clarify MOU's with all the schools involved with SafeFutures: Our
interview work revealed that the majority of school administrators are not
familiar with Safe Futures as a program. While they are appreciative of and
familiar with particular staff people from Safe Futures, there is no acknowledgement
of the broader goals and philosophy of the program. This understanding and buy-in is
necessary to insure integration within the school community and to help insure the
continuation of services beyond the grant period.
E. Utilize other services and systems to meet the needs of youth. It appears that once
a youth is taken into a program they receive all of their services from that one
program. In some cases, a caseworker should determine if there are additional
services that a youth might need and make arrangements to insure that such services
are obtained.
F. Explore the reasons for the lack of adequate mental health service delivery for
youth and work to overcome the problem. As reported by service providers, Safe
Futures participants are not accessing county mental health services. Given the
multitude of problems faced by youth and their families and the described conditions
of families and neighborhoods, it is assumed that many of these youth would benefit
from mental health services. An inventory of current County Mental Health programs
and funding streams would help direct program staff and the oversight committee to
insure connections with these important sources of services.
G. Make service delivery and the school site-based curricula (behavioral/anger
management, conflict resolution, and life skills) provided by Youth Service
Bureau staff consistent, to the extent possible, while acknowledging the goals of
SafeFutures and those of the school. This could be worked on as part of the
Memoranda of Understanding process described above in recommendation#4.
H. Define protocols for engagement between Safe Futures caseworkers and the staff
and managers of the Probation Department and the high schools and middle
schools. There are continuing differences between representatives from community
based organizations and representatives from the Probation and the police
departments about information sharing and probation compliance, e.g. when to
violate a youth on probation, what information that community agency staff have
must be passed on to probation officers, etc. Though both groups share a deep
concern for public safety, there appear to be significant differences regarding the
mission of the effort and ways to improve public safety. It should be noted that this is
not the case in every situation. The situations were collaboration has worked should
be noted and shared in order to establish a positive model for future efforts.
I. Assume a vigorous partnership role to increase school success and commitment
to academic achievement through community-wide mobilization to support, school
success and academic achievement. This must be linked to tools and resources for
schools and after school programs that will support improving language and math
literacy.
Prepared for the Contra Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 15
By Resource DevelopmentAssociates
January.2001
i
i
Prepared for the Contro Costa County Safe Futures Program Page 16
By Resource Development Associates
January,2001