HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05042004 - C61 FHS #t3 .o a Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , Costa
FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN S'ERVI'CES COMMITTEE
DATE: MAY 4, 2004 Countyj"�`��
SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT FROM JSPAC
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommendation:
ACCEPT reports from the Revenue, Juvenile Sex Offender and Transition Work Groups
established by the Family and Human Services Committee to review suggested cost savings
measures proposed by the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee, as
recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.
Fiscal Impact. None
Backaround:
The Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC) responded to the County
Administrator's request for cost cutting strategies, which was referred to the Family and
Human Services Committee in June 2403.
The Committee recommended the establishment of three working groups to study specific
issues surrounding juvenile sex offenders, transitional housing, and revenue enhancement.
On June 24, the Board of Supervisors directed formation of these workgroups.
These groups were formed with members from Employment and Human Services Department,
Homeless Division, Mental Health Division, Probation Department, the Office of Education, the
County Administrator's Office and JSPAC. Topics of discussion were the current system in
place, systems in place in other jurisdictions, where service delivery gaps existed, current cost,
potential increased costs, and potential savings. A variety of ideas were investigated. The
recommendations in the attached reports have been developed and agreed to by the entire
membership of each group.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGN TUBE:
-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR /RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
t
a ;
t •
SIGNATURE(S): + _
MARk beSAUL R J [OIA
ACTION OF BOARD ON Ma4--, 2004 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
R UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Nori' ) 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:
ATTESTED MaY 4 , 2004
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact Person: Dorothy Sansoe(5-1009)
CC: CAO
HSD
EHSD
JSPAC
Probation
Office of Education ( ff
BY: � �������'�X�-�' DEPUTY
County of Centra Casty
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 22, 2004
TO: Family and Human Services Committee
FROM: Dorothy Sansoe, Staff
SUBJECT: Referral #3 --Oversight of the Work of the Juvenile Systems Planning
Advisory Committee—Report on the Work of the Revenue;JSO and
Transition Work Croups
RECOMMENDATION
ACCEPT the three attached reports from the Revenue, JSO and Transition Work Groups.
ACKNOWLEDGE that the County is currently in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal
crisis that will take a minimum of several years from which to recover, and which may
degrade the current level of services.
CONSIDER, once the budget crisis is over and additional funding becomes available,
pursuing the recommendations in each of the reports.
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2003, the County Administration requested that local stakeholders and
interested groups recommend cost cutting or other strategies to help balance the County
budget for the 2003-04 fiscal year. The Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee
(JSPAC)was one of the committees that responded to this request.
On June 2, 2003 the Family and Human Services Committee met and discussed the work
being performed by the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee(JSPAC). At
this meeting, Florence McAuley, the Chairman of JSPAC, requested and the Committee
approved,the establishment of three working groups to study specific issues surrounding
juvenile sex offenders, transitional housing, and revenue enhancement. On June 24, the
Board of Supervisor directed that these workgroups be formed.
Staff from Employment and Human Services, Mental Health, Homeless,Probation,
County Administrator, Office of Education, and JSPAC were invited to participate in the
work groups. Over a six-month period.,the three individual groups met at least four
times each. These groups discussed the current system in place, systems in place in other
jurisdictions,where service delivery gaps existed,current cost,potential increased costs,
and potential savings. A variety of ideas were investigated. The recommendations in the
attached reports have been developed and agreed to by the entire membership of each
group.
Sandy Marsh, from the Health Services Department,Mental Health Division, agreed to
facilitate all three work groups. I would like to formally thank Sandy for the effort she
has put in over the past six months. In addition to coordinating all three groups, she also
provided status reports to JSP'AC. Her assistance has been greatly appreciated.
Fiscal Workgroup Report To
Family and Human Services Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT the report of the Fiscal workgroup.
ACKNOWLEDGE that the County is currently in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal
crisis that will take a minimum of several years from which to recover.
REQUEST the Departments to continue to work together as an ongoing fiscal committee
made up of the same member Departments to continue to look at changes in regulations
related to funding opportunities, to cooperate whenever feasible to alleviate the fiscal
burden of any partner(i.e., allowing a pass through in order to draw down`a match, etc.),
and to report to the County Administrators Office for leadership and direction.
BACKGROUND:
There are multiple revenue sources used by different Departments as part of either their
mandates or discretionary allocations(i.e., grants, etc.). Because of the current fiscal
reality, it is imperative for County departments to investigate these various revenue
sources to see if they are being under utilized or are leveraging other funds whenever
possible. This workgroup looked at various funding source regulations to determine if
they could be used to replace County General Funds or claimed in such a way as to pull
down matching funds.
This work group looked at the following funding sources: EPSDT*, STOP*,IDEA*,
SB163*, VOC*, Title IV-E(NB)*, Title XIX*, COPS*, MAA*, SB90*,TANF*, and
JJCPA*. Generally,CCC utilizes all of the allocations that are available to their
maximum limit. There are some funds that are not limited and could be expanded to
enhance programs, services or positions. However,many of these funds require a County
match that would also need a funding source. There are, as well, other groups working on
utilizing specific funding sources. [Note: the Sustainability workgroup made up of
participants from EHSD,Probation,Mental Health, and Public Health have been working
on plans to sustain the Mental Health Federal Grant. They have analyzed SB163 which is
a funding option to reduce group home placements by providing Wraparound services.
They are moving forward with a plan that needs State Department of Social Services
approval for implementation.]
During this process each department was asked if there were positions that might qualify
under another funding stream. We did find some instances when a position could be paid
for by a particular funding stream that was currently paid for by County general funds
(CCF). In those cases,we inquired with the specific departments responsible for those
funds to make the appropriate adjustments that would allow CGF savings.
1
FINDINGS:
1 Centra Costa County generally utilizes all of the current Funding available at its
capped amount(when appropriate) and has considered the alternatives(i.e., using
Title IV-E instead of MAA billing For a particular Probation position because the
draw down is higher).
2 Many funding resources have criteria that are complicated and lock out other
combinations or blending options.
3 The state and County are currently in a severe fiscal crisis. There may be whale
programs eliminated or drastic reductions of some of the funding opportunities
making it difficult to predict or plan a utilization strategy(i.e.,EPDT may well
have an SMA* decrease,increased County match and may be capped)
4 Some revenue resources are"promising„ future payment,can't be counted on
currently and are risky payment reimbursements(i.e.,VOC and SB94)
5 Because of the decreasing funding resources and complicated"strings" attached
to funds, it is not appropriate to pool the available department resources.
6 There has been and continues to be a great Ileal of collaboration between the
Departments creating an atmosphere of respect and cooperation. CCC has
dedicated a great deal of time and energy into the collaborative process and values
ongoing interagency coordination.
7 Some departments have grants that require ongoing fiscal collaborative oversight.
*See attached Glossary
2
FISCAL WORKGROUP GLOSSARY
EPSDT-Early and Periodic Screening,Diagnosis and Treatment- is a category of federal
Medicaid that provides comprehensive health care for individuals under age 21 who are
eligible for the full-scope of MediCal benefits that are medically necessary to correct or
ameliorate a defect,physical and mental illness or condition. EPSDT is funded at 50%
State and 50°la Federal reimbursement. (Note: since fiscal year 02/03 the County has a
5%match to State funding for all EPSDT"growth")
STOP- Supportive and Therapeutic Options Program-provides treatment, supports and
aftercare services to families with at-risk children and youth that cannot access needed
services through current funding mechanisms(i.e., youth who do not qualify for MediCal
or Health Families). STOP funding is shared at 70%State General Funds and 30%
matching County Funds. Funds are allocated at 50% for EHSD, 25%for Probation and
25% for Health Services for a maximum 02/03 allowance of$215,307.
IDEA- Individual with Disabilities Education Act- funds services for children of all
income groups who meet special education's disability criteria.
S11163-Senate Bill 163-allows counties the flexible use of State foster care dollars to
provide youth"in or at-risk"of Level 10-14 placement with family based'Wraparound
services. The sharing ratio is 0/40/60(fed/state/county)of placement dollars per
youngster enrolled. The funds are flexible and can be accumulated.
VOC- Victims of Crime Program- (Victim/Witness, Victim Compensation Program)-
provides funding to reimburse expenses that are necessary as a direct result of a crime.
TITLE IV-E-Foster Care and Adoptions Assistance funding program supporting foster
care, administration and training child welfare functions.
TITLE IV-B- are federal funds for prevention of out-of-home placement by promoting
safe and stable families.
TITLE XIX-federal funding for health related services for foster youth. The
reimbursement is 50%for social work staff and 75%for licensed staff.
COPS-Citizen Options for Public Safety- are State funds for County Probation and
Police to address safety issues. CCC Probation has created several programs and services
through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act(JJCPA under COPS).
MAA-MediCal Administrative Activities—is funding related to outreach activities
including program planning and development, contract monitoring and MediCal
eligibility.
SB90-Senate Bill 90-is legislation that allows for the State to reimburse counties each
year for the cost of state mandated services for special education youngsters.
1
TAN'F-Temporary Assistance to Needy Families- is capped block grant funds with no
state match to provides services for needy families with children.
SMA- Standard Maximum Allowable- is the Medical maximum reimbursement rates for
various services.
2
Transition Workgroup Report To
Family and Human Services Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT the findings of the Transition Workgroup.
ACKNOWLEDGE that the County is currently in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal
crisis which will take a minimum of several years from which to recover.
REQUEST that EHSD,Health Services(MH,AOD,Homeless Program,
PH),Probation, and COE participate in an informal, ongoing Transitioning Youth
Committee with the charge to explore housing possibilities, collaborative funding
opportunities,model programs, etc.,to coordinate with other collaboratives working on
these issues as part of a continuum of care, and to report to the Board of Supervisors at
such time when funding is identified and available.
BACKGROUND:
A Committee composed of representatives from the County Administrator's Office,
Health Services,Employment and Human Services,Probation, Education,and JSPAC
convened to explore the feasibility of developing an in-county Transitional Housing
program for youth.. Because the term"transition youth"is used to reflect various
situations, the group mapped out existing resources and services gaps. The target
population was narrowed to include 16 to 19 year old Contra Costa residents who may
need stabilization(i.e.,bouncing from one higher level group home to another),
independent living skills,mental health treatment, and/or school counseling. The
youngsters might be runaways or homeless. The group added new partners(Contra Costa
Homeless Program.)who have resources and knowledge about this population. The group
investigated)how other Counties are handling this issue(i.e., Fred)Finch operates4
Transitional Youth programs in Alameda County).
FINDINGS
• There is a serious housing need for transitioning youth in Contra Costa County.
+ There is a significant gap in the service continuum for this population.
• There may be county owned buildings that could be used to house these
youngsters or other facilities that may become available(i.e.,Drake House).
+ There are fundis which may be available from HUD, SHIA EPSDT, ILS, Capital
Development Loans, and other grants to assist in funding these needs.
+ There are currently outer collaboratives working on similar issues(i.e., Care
Collaborative, etc.).
• There are successful programs in other counties as models for development.
1
+� There is interest between departments to continue collaborating on these issues
including exploring cooperative funding opportunities, service gaps, assessments
and referrals, etc.
2
Juvenile Sex Offender Workgroup Report To
Family and.Human Services Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT the findings of the JSO workgroup.
ACKNOWLEDGE that the County is currently in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal
crisis, from which it will take a minimum of several year to recover, and which may
degrade the current level of services.
CONSIDER,once funding becomes available,pursuing the renovation of the Lions Cate
facility [where the Juvenile Court is currently located pending remodel of their space in
the old Juvenile Hall] or another facility available to the County, as a possible co-
location for a JSO program with the Summit Center for Boys.
BACKGROUND:
Juvenile Sex.Offending is a serious and expensive problem in Contra Costa County
(CCC). It tears apart families and impacts our Communities. Offenders often come from
abusive backgrounds themselves and the problem may continue for generations. Because
many juvenile sex offenses are incestuous in nature, it has become a multi-agency issue.
Usually the offender is removed from the home, and sometimes the victim is also taken
out of the home,multiplying both the emotional and financial costs to the families, as
well as, the burden on the CCC taxpayer. In the current economy, as the County budget
is affected by the State's financial crisis, it makes sense to analyze the potential cost
differences between the existing system and any other means of addressing the problem
of treating and monitoring juvenile sex offenders in Contra Costa County.
The Probation Department has 25 to 30 adjudicated youngsters placed in out-of-county
sex offender facilities at any given time. This has been a fairly stable statistic in CCC for
a number of years. Most of the offenders are boys who,ultimately, are placed in age- and
offense-appropriate treatment programs for an eighteen-month to three year period. All
of those programs are located outside CCC. The average County cost per year per boy is
$36,500 for a total annual cost of over one million dollars.
The JSO workgroup was asked to look at the feasibility of having an in-county residential
sex offender program including costs, obstacles,issues, and other pros and cons. Based
upon work done by a previous workgroup,the current array of services available in
Contra Costa County were mapped to include: individual therapy, two adolescent groups,
one non-offender parent group, one offender parent group, and psychological evaluations
to determine community safety issues. Two Community Based Organizations(CBOs),
Crossroads and A Step Forward,perform most of the direct offender treatment,
educational, and relapse prevention services for young offenders. Community Violence
Solutions and many other programs provide services for victims of sexual offenses.
1
Issues examined by this workgroup include:
1. Community Concern& Safety--NIMBY, facility security
2. Client/Offender Safety-security of the boys placed at the facility
3. Service Gaps-the transition/step-down services offered
4. Costs-county operated vs. CBO operated
5. Offender only vs.mixed treatment facility
Research(Borduin et al, 1990,Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offender,
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105-114)
(Rasmussen, 1999)suggests that family involvement in treatment decreases recidivism
and allows for a more successful transition back into the Community. This would
positively impact the cost of placement. As well, Edward Latessa,Ph.D., Dean of
Criminal Justice,University of Cincinnati, Ohio in What Works in Correctional
Intervention, reports that it is not helpful to keep youngsters in residential treatment
beyond one year. Children and families lose hope and the maximum benefit has already
been achieved.
Looking at the above issues,the group analyzed the cost of a county operated program
(i.e., Summit Center,an in-county CBO operated facility)and the current out-of-county
CBO contractor run facilities. The discussion also included possible problems with an in-
county CBO contractor operated facility(i.e., safety, security,control and collaboration).
We looked into the possibility,both pragmatically and financially,of expanding the
Summit Center to include a Sex Offender Unit.
FINDINGS:
• There is a continuing need to address the treatment and placement of
juvenile sex offenders
• Characteristics of sex offenders(poor peer&family relationships, lack of
empathy, educational difficulties,thinking errors,poor anger management
and impulse control, etc.) are the same as other juvenile offenders and
those issues, as well as,the offense itself, need to be addressed. (Johnson,
S., 1994. Character Styles, NY: W.W.Norton&Co.)(Miner'and
Crimmins, 1995)(Spaccarelli et al., 1997)
• The effectiveness of segregating juveniles who have committed sex
offenses has not been proven and some studies suggest otherwise
(Juveniles who have sexually offended, OJJDP report March 2001).
(Nate: Family Life Center is a residential treatment facility in Petaluma,
CA,utilized by Contra Costa County Probation who co-locate/integrate
juvenile offenders)
• It is fiscally beneficial to operate an in-county JSO facility. The amount
saved will depend on which plan and how implemented. The tables below
are rough estimates of two plans based upon Probation County Dollars.
2
The following table compares the"program per child costs " (that is,the costs
for a child to complete a program)for our County Operated Program
(Summit)and an out-of-county CBO operated program.
Because the Summit Program is an in-county program and able to work
intensely with the families as best practice dictates, the length of stay is
shorter than for the out-of—county programs. This allows for a cost savings
per child, as well as, allowing more youngsters access to treatment. If Summit
were expanded more savings per child would be generated.
The County operated facility vs. Out-of County CRO facility:
,Facility #enrolled Probation Average Total d$$
$$per year Length of Stay $$for 1 saved
per child in program child to
complete
program
Summit 20 $50,000 1 year $50,0003 $4,750
CBO 20 $36,500 1 12 years $54,750 Per child
conservative)
If Summit were a 30 bed facility(based upon an increase in Probation staff
and services)the costs/savings would be:
Summit 30 $45,500 1 year $45,5003 $9,250
CBO 30 $36,500 1 'la years $54,750! per child
The table below compares the"program per child costs"of an in-county and
an out-of-county CBO operated program. This comparison concludes that
while the annual cost per child would be the same, a savings would be
realized with a shortened length of stay.
In County CBO facility vs. Out of County CBO facility-If CCC could
control the length of stay
Facility #enrolled Probation Average Total$$for d,$$$
$$per Length of 1 child to saved
year per Stay complete'
child program
In- 20 $36,500 1 year $36,500
County $18,250
CBO per
Out-of 20 $36,500 1!2 years $54,750 child
County conservatively
CBO
3
• It is a better practice for families to be involved in treatment(Ivlorenz&
Becker,1995, from Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended, OJJDP, 3/01)
and more practical With an in-county facility.
• Family involvement allows for a shorter length of stay for youngsters in
residential treatment which is key to reducing residential treatment costs.
• There may be opportunities to collaborate with neighboring counties
concerning these youngsters.
• if the County would develop an in-county JSO residential facility(based
upon the scarcity of community services for juvenile sex offenders)there
would be a need to improve transition and step-down services including
community supervision and ongoing treatment.
• There is a need to either move Summit Center or secure it as a free-
standing residential facility after the closure of the old Juvenile Hall. This
Will require some County funding. [Note: When the new Juvenile Hall is
completed,the old Juvenile Hall(to which Summit Center is physically
attached and dependent on for utilities)will shut down.]
• Expanding Summit Center to include a JSO program would result in
savings in placement costs to Probation. (see above table).
• The County's current fiscal and legal priorities may prohibit any
immediate change in the status quo.
4