Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

S.L. 2007-323 6.21(c) & (g)

February 1, 2008

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS SECTION 6.21.(a) No later than February 1, 2008, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the following funds, programs, or divisions: (1) Association of Clerks of Superior Court. (2) The Conference of District Attorneys. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. Page 18 Session Law 2007-323 SL2007-0323 SECTION 6.21.(b) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Correction shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Criminal Justice Partnership Program. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21.(c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21.(d) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Environmental Stewardship Initiative. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21.(e) No later than February 1, 2008, the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Center for Nursing. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21.(f) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the following funds, programs, or divisions: (1) Office of Policy and Planning. (2) Dental Supplies/Division of Public Health. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21.(g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. SECTION 6.21.(h) The Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives may review the funds, programs, and divisions listed in this section and shall determine whether to continue, reduce, or eliminate funding for the funds, programs, and divisions, subject to the continuation review program. The Fiscal Research Division may issue instructions to the State departments and agencies affected by this section regarding the expected content and format of the reports required by this section.

Acknowledgements The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report is the product of the involvement and efforts of many individuals. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention graciously acknowledge the contributions of over 1,400 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council members and service providers who participated in the North Carolina Central University - Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership Survey and the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Service Provider Survey. In addition, we received hundreds of comments and suggestions from participants in the two Department forums on the State of Juvenile Justice in North Carolina. We thank them for their interest, comments, and suggestions regarding this report. We especially wish to express our appreciation to Arnold Dennis and Donnie Charleston of the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University for providing a report on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership Survey involving almost 1,000 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council members from communities throughout the state. Finally, we wish to thank the many Department staff that spent many days and nights researching, collecting and analyzing data, writing, and revising many drafts of this report. This report represents a true collaborative team effort by those professionals who are committed to and remain focused on our youth.

1

Table of Contents

Legislation

i

Acknowledgements

ii

Table of Contents

1

Executive Summary

2

Introduction

4

Section 1

6

Section 2

34

Section 3

65

Section 4 Appendix A & B

74

Section 5 Appendix A & B

109

Section 6

143

Section 7

145

2

JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS CONTINUATION REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention offers the following Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report in response to Special Provision SECTION 6.21.(c) (g). The report is organized into the seven sections required by the Special Provision. Each section provides information that builds a case for restoring and increasing the funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs). (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. Section one conveys that there are historical and research contexts which set forth a framework for JCPCs; an emphasis found in these contexts is prevention. Information about the JCPC program is presented in terms of the State-Local Partnership it reflects. Detail about JCPC services and recipients evidences the broad range and reach of program operations, and a delineation of resource requirements sets forth that these requirements reflect an investment that translates into savings now and in the future. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. Section two begins by offering a logic model to frame the JCPC approach and includes information that reflects both formative and summative evaluations of program performance and the meeting of measures related to program performance. The evidence of JCPC program success ranges from actions that are taken, including the defunding of JCPC programs when programs do not operate as they should, to the successful achievement of targeted program objectives and legislatively identified objectives. It also offers information about the Standard Program Evaluation Protocol, the Department’s effort to evaluate JCPC programs using research and evidence-based practices. The information specifically shows that, working collaboratively, Department staff and local JCPCs have monitored JCPC program performance by carrying out systematic interventions in response to varying levels of program effectiveness. These interventions range from providing additional training and technical assistance to increased intensity of program monitoring and evaluation, to JCPCs making decisions to discontinue program funding in cases in which service providers were either unwilling or incapable to respond to provisions in Corrective Action Plans. Further, this section reveals a consistent pattern of JCPC funded programs in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 that demonstrated a high level of attainment of individual program measurable objectives in four areas matched to local risk and needs of at-risk and court involved youth in counties throughout the State. In addition, the data presented also documents significant longitudinal progress (FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006) by local JCPC programs using six meaningful outcome measures required by statute to demonstrate program effectiveness. Finally, the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol is described as a tool used by Department staff and local JCPCs to enhance program development and program effectiveness evaluation and to efficiently meet the statutory requirement that JCPCs “fund evidence-based programs only.” Overall, this section offers evidence of significant accomplishments in demonstrating program effectiveness by JCPC programs. Youth are learning skills, changing behaviors, and changing life styles. Victims are being compensated, and public safety is being enhanced. Cost savings related to reduced recidivism can be projected from what is offered. All of this is especially notable given that there has been essentially flat funding for JCPCs from 1999-2007. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. Section three offers a rationale for continued and increased JCPC funding that sets forth prevention, statute, data, need, and cost savings as premises. The rationale highlights how JCPC funding is an essential part of the State’s juvenile justice system and that its continuation and, in fact, increase are supported by statute, program outcomes data, need for additional resources, and cost savings strategies. A strong case is made for shifting funding from reduced youth development center commitments to the “front end” of the juvenile justice system to be used for prevention programs that are effective in diverting at-risk youth from crime and enhancing public safety. Evidence is provided that convincingly demonstrates a consistent pattern of JCPC grant services meeting or exceeding their measurable program objectives in such critical areas as school suspension and improved academic achievement, improved school and home behavior, completed restitution to victims, and improved anger management skills and job/employment-related skills. Equally important are data demonstrating that JCPC funded grant programs have effectively achieved program outcomes deemed important to the General Assembly (e.g., reducing subsequent court complaints and violations of court supervision, fulfilling restitution to victims, and increasing parental accountability and involvement). Data are also presented that articulate a systematic decision-making process used by JCPCs resulting in over 100 JCPC funded programs having their funding discontinued by their JCPCs as a result of lack of effectiveness in meeting program objectives and/or poor project management during FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006. Finally, a strong case is made for increasing future funding for JCPCs based on increase youth population (including at-

3

risk youth), a lag in funding of JCPCs over the last eight years, and the need for additional resources to further ensure JCPC program accountability and quality. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. Section four articulates the very real and serious consequences of discontinuing funding of JCPC programs and services in the State. These consequences are clearly evidenced in two recent large-scale surveys: one by the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University involving almost 1,000 JCPC members from all 100 counties, and a second by the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in which over 500 JCPC service providers articulated their concerns regarding any proposed reduction or elimination of JCPC funds for at-risk and adjudicated youth in every county in the State. The consequences of discontinued funding will negatively impact the successful maintenance of at-risk and juvenile court-involved youth receiving prevention and intervention programs and services to address their needs. Eighty-four percent of JCPC service providers will have to cease operation if JCPC funding is discontinued. Law enforcement officials, school administrators, DSS and Health Services directors, and court counselors participating in these two surveys pointed out the negative impact on public and school safety, resultant increases in gang activity, increases in school dropouts and suspensions, and significant increases in court involvement and juvenile commitments to youth development centers if JCPC funding is cut or discontinued. Ninety-eight percent of county managers and commissioners sitting on JCPCs as members indicated that they cannot pick up the costs associated with JCPC programs and services in their counties. Equally important is the fact that the climate of uncertainty created by the continuation review process has put the integrity of the JCPC itself at risk, in terms of threatening years of interagency collaboration and pooling of resources among community agencies and organizations. Finally, the Sentencing Commission’s latest research shows that the deeper youth are placed in the juvenile justice system, the more likely they are to recidivate and enter into the adult correctional system----at a cost to the youth and a cost to the State that can be avoided by reinstating, making recurring, and increasing funding for JCPC prevention and intervention programs to meet the needs of youth at-risk and those involved in juvenile courts in the State. (5) Recommendations for improving services. Section five highlights major recommendations for improving JCPC programs and services. Sources of these recommendations included over 1,500 respondents to the JCPC Membership Survey and JCPC Program Provider Survey. Recommendations for JCPC program improvement cluster around three areas: (1) a systematic review of the JCPC funding formula to determine if it is consistent with community needs, changes in juvenile offense patterns, and changes in the juvenile ages 10-17 population; (2) improved JCPC program accountability and effectiveness, including a review of accountability measures for JCPCs as aligned with standards of good practice for non-profit agencies and government entities, development of a paperless grants management system, increased funding to train JCPCs in program monitoring, and additional staff at the Department level to improve JCPC program monitoring and evaluation as well as internal auditing of fiscal processes; and (3) continued development of a consensus philosophy , practice and skill building that emphasizes the family and System of Care dynamics. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. Section six focuses on recommendations for reducing costs related to the operation of JCPC funded grant programs and services throughout the State. Recommendations emphasize possible cost savings and improved program quality assurance resulting from JCPC multi-year strategic planning, a paperless system of grants management, use of videoconferencing as a tool for ongoing JCPC member and service provider training, an initiative to improve the JCPC program monitoring and evaluation system, and a systematic review and plan of action by JCPCs and county agencies to reduce any overlap in services and to better serve underserved youth. An additional point about reducing costs in this area involves a concluding recommendation that has been voiced in other parts of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s response to the continuation review requirements. This recommendation highlights that costs are saved through the expenditure of JCPC funds. By reinstating and increasing these funds, an investment in the people and communities of the State occurs with associated cost savings in multiple areas: law enforcement; the court system; juvenile justice; and adult corrections. Expenditures which focus on prevention now bring benefits today and into the future. Every youth who increasingly engages in juvenile delinquency and crime costs the State more resources and represents a loss beyond those costs in terms of his or her future positive contributions as a taxpaying citizen of the State. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. Section seven proposes six policy issues for attention: prevention; youth served; allocation; blended funding; mental health needs and services; and accountability and evaluation. Each requires discussion and decision.

4

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:

JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS: INTRODUCTION

The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sees the required Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) Continuation Review as an opportunity for the State to examine an approach that is working. When JCPCs were established as part of juvenile justice reform in 1998, they were put forth as the mechanisms through which youth would be prevented “from becoming delinquent.” JCPCs were also intended by the General Assembly “to provide noninstitutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and juveniles.” Prevention and Public Safety ring throughout North Carolina General Statute – Chapter 143B Article 12 which describes JCPCs and the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Prevention and public safety are linked in the statute and are linked in our communities. JCPCs enable prevention and intervention strategies to be implemented in a process that targets the needs of youth, families, and communities. These strategies have impacts that are immediately felt through youth and family participation in JCPC programs with one of the primary impacts being on the safety of our communities. Youth gain beyond their program participation by learning skills that translate into positive behaviors. Such behavioral changes ultimately lead to life changes which impact the quality of life in all of our communities. The continuation review report makes the case for reinstating and increasing funding for JCPCs. This case is supported by evidence that reflects positive outcomes for youth who participate in programs. The evidence that is offered goes beyond statistics to the input received from thousands of North Carolinians who responded to questionnaires and attended public forums during the continuation review process. The Department has heard from judges, law enforcement officials, school administrators, county commissioners, city officials, mental health experts, academics, program / service providers, parents, and youth --- all stakeholders who support JCPC funding. The message resonating from these various groups is to remember that the history of juvenile justice reform is one reflective of an intent to prevent juvenile delinquency and crime. The message also is to remember that we need to refocus on what funding like this is all about – the youth of our State who represent the future of our State. The message is also to fund JCPC efforts in order to meet the wide ranging needs of these youth, their families, and our communities and to maintain the safety of our communities. Finally, the message is one of reminding all of the responsibility we have to our communities for public safety and to these youth and their families for giving them the opportunity to be law-abiding citizens. The Department readily acknowledges that we do not succeed with every youth we serve. We also realize that some JCPC programs are unsuccessful in spite of our efforts. We, who serve the most at-risk youth of the State, have one thing in common. We never write off an at-risk youth as a hopeless case. We try hard to save every youth that lands in our system. With this in mind, we say that the time to act on this continuation review is now (see Figure One).

5

6

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS: JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM, SERVICES, RECIPIENTS AND RESOURCE REQUIRMENTS SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The first section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of services, and the resource requirements.” The following offers that information after providing some historical and research contexts. Historical and Research Contexts for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils: The Juvenile Justice Reform Act (1998) and the Comprehensive Strategy A review of history reveals that North Carolina’s approach to juvenile crime was redefined in 1998 with the ratification of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. GS §143B-543 reads, “It is the intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at risk from becoming delinquent.” The statute further articulates the General Assembly’s intent “to provide non-institutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and the juveniles” (see Appendix A. GS §143B-550). The intent set forth in this statute is totally consistent with national models for effective and successful juvenile justice systems and highlights the need for prevention to be a key focus of juvenile justice. The North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was established in July 2000 with a very purposeful approach to the inclusion of “Delinquency Prevention” in its name. As the first cabinet-level agency to focus on juvenile justice issues and at-risk youth in the State, the Department works to provide North Carolina with a research-based, comprehensive strategy that is designed to prevent and reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. Interesting to note is that an important element of juvenile justice reform in other states has been the establishment of high level executive branch agencies dedicated to the prevention of delinquency. Among those are the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois, who since 2005 have elevated their juvenile justice agencies to cabinet level departments. Illinois also separated

7

its juvenile justice system from its adult corrections system in order to make the necessary and desired transition from an adult correctional model to one of delinquency prevention and treatment.1

The Comprehensive Strategy (see Figure One), a two-tiered system for responding proactively to juvenile delinquency and crime, focuses to strengthen families, promote delinquency prevention, support core social institutions, intervene immediately when delinquent behavior occurs, and identify and control the small group of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in the local communities.

Figure One: Comprehensive Strategy

NC’s Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Delinquency

Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending

PreventionTarget Population: At-Risk Youth

Preventing youth from becoming

delinquent by focusing prevention

programs on at-risk youth

Graduated SanctionsTarget Population: Delinquent Youth

Improving the juvenile justice system

response to delinquent offenders

through a system of graduated

sanctions and a continuum of

treatment alternatives

> > > > > >Programs for All Youth

Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk

Immediate Intervention

Intermediate Sanctions

Community Confinement

Training Schools Aftercare

In the first tier, delinquency prevention and early intervention programs are relied upon to prevent and reduce the onset of delinquency. If these efforts fail, then the second tier needs to make proactive responses to juvenile delinquents by addressing the risk factors for recidivism and the associated treatment needs of delinquents, particularly those with a high likelihood of becoming serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. To reduce this likelihood, a continuum of sanctions (a set of integrated intervention strategies designed to operate in unison to enhance accountability, ensure public safety, and reduce recidivism by preventing future delinquent behavior) and services for juvenile offenders needs to be in place.

The prevention and early intervention component is based on a risk- and protection-focused model that was initially developed in the public health arena. The public health model, for

1 Melanie King, “Guide to the State Juvenile Justice Profiles, “ National Center for Juvenile Justice Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court Bulletin (April 2006):1.

8

example, indicates that the best way to treat heart disease is to prevent it from occurring in the first place. Likewise, the best way to address delinquency and juvenile crime is to prevent it from occurring. A continuum of prevention strategies is needed to address each of the major risk factor domains (individual, family, peer group, school, and community). This is where the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils, the subject of this Continuation Review report, come into play. Additionally, the graduated sanctions component consists of five levels of sanctions, moving from least to most restrictive:

• Immediate intervention with first-time delinquent offenders (misdemeanors and non-violent felonies) and nonserious repeat offenders

• Intermediate sanctions for first-time serious or violent offenders, including intensive supervision for chronic and serious/violent offenders

• Community confinement in small community-based facilities or programs for offenders who require intensive services in a staff-secure environment

• Secure corrections for the most serious, violent, and chronic offenders • Aftercare for confined youth, including step-down interventions coupled with decreasing

services

The comprehensive strategy is research based, data driven, and outcome focused. It empowers communities to assess their own delinquency problems and guides them in how to use data to design and develop their own comprehensive strategies.

Description of the Program: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils

Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) are the foundation for North Carolina’s comprehensive strategy to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and crime (see Appendix A: N.C.G.S. § 143B-543). JCPCs are responsible for planning and developing strategies to address and prevent juvenile delinquency at the county level in partnership with the State so that there is coordination with statewide resources, priorities, and objectives. JCPCs are responsible for developing alocal continuum of needed sanctions and services to address the issues of delinquent juveniles, those juveniles most likely to become delinquent, and their families. JCPC membership composition consists of nineteen specific members (local leaders, agency directors - or their designees, and professionals who work with youth and families in various capacities) and up to seven members of the public who are appointed to serve by the County Board of Commissioners. These individuals are not only the key leaders and decision makers in the county; they are the most knowledgeable of the problems and issues related to youth and families in the county. They represent agencies and organizations who are working to prevent crime, teen pregnancy, school drop-outs and substance abuse. They represent the many settings where youth gather and interact in the community, such as schools, recreation facilities, and community centers. These settings are the places either where delinquent acts may occur or where youth may be engaged in pro-social activities. In addition to the statutory membership, a critical participant in each JCPC is one of the Department’s 10 area consultants. The area consultant serves as the Department’s liaison to the JCPC and functions as the “glue” that binds the local process with the statutory mandates,

9

policies, and objectives. The area consultant, in addition to providing various levels of technical assistance to the county and the JCPC, plays a significant role as facilitator for various processes leading up to decisions in training, planning, funding, and evaluating. The area consultant often serves as a catalyst for initiating collaboration and problem solving. Many JCPC members are key community decision makers who have knowledge of and sometimes have access to other potential funding streams, or resources which may be used or combined with others to help meet the financial or material requirements of needed services. In order to stretch the available state funding, JCPCs work to leverage and make the best possible use of those existing community resources to meet the needs of youth and families. For instance, if an agency can donate office space and utilities, state funds which otherwise would go towards those expenses may be used to help increase the number of juveniles who may be served by a grant or to fund an additional grant. Other examples of donations might include food for after-school programs or office supplies. Examples of other local sources of funding which may be blended with state funding include local foundation grants or United Way funds, or a county appropriation. While local sources are usually not sufficient to totally fund or equip a needed service, these monies may be used to cover part of the expenses of a grant. The juvenile justice system in the United States has been described as being not one single system, but fifty-one disjointed systems which function differently under different juvenile codes with varying philosophies as to how to respond to juvenile delinquency.2 Across the nation, many of these 51 systems are neither uniform nor seamless. The partnership in North Carolina between the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the 100 counties of the State is an essential link for implementation of an effective and seamless juvenile justice system. The State-Local Partnership allows North Carolina to have one unified juvenile justice system rather than 100 fragmented local systems with a state overlay of courts and institutions. A purely state-centered planning and service development model creates a universal plan: however, the diverse and unique resources and strengths of the local communities are lost, and needs are generalized across the state. A universal plan must assume that similar resources and approaches will satisfy the circumstances in each county in the same way. This will result in some services being unnecessarily duplicated, and the wrong or unneeded services being provided in some areas. Such an approach does not foster, promote, or model the level of collaboration needed at the county level to get local agencies to support and cooperate with efforts to reduce incidences of delinquency. On the other hand, a purely local-centered approach to planning, decision making, and service development loses the ability to coordinate with the other 99 counties or with the State in terms of policy, resources, continuity and consistency of services, or standards of practice. This approach results in a smattering of disjointed strategies, approaches, and priorities across the each of the individual counties and throughout the State. This approach fails to yield a uniform statewide system of delinquency prevention strategies, graduated sanctions, and alternatives to commitment. 2 Melanie King, “Guide to the State Juvenile Justice Profiles, “ National Center for Juvenile Justice Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court Bulletin (April 2006):1.

10

While the Comprehensive Strategy stresses the high level of importance of local planning and decision making, it also stresses the critical importance of developing mechanisms for coordination and collaboration between the juvenile justice and other service provision systems, including education, mental health, law enforcement, health, and social services.3 In North Carolina, these systems exist as agencies at both the state and county level. The Department is the only one of these agencies with direct administrative authority over its community level services. Each of these other agencies is in varying degrees administratively autonomous from its state level counterpart. The Department is therefore in a unique position to foster and facilitate collaboration with these systems at not only the state level, but simultaneously at the county level. The partnership that exists between the State and counties (see Figure Two) allows for “a joining together” of the unique strengths and resources of the State with those resources existing within each individual county. Figure Two illustrates how the necessary elements for implementing the Comprehensive Strategy are brought together at the county level, enabling the JCPC to function. While the work of the JCPC is driven at the county level, the involvement of the Department is critical to equipping the JCPC to fulfill its role in developing a local continuum of services. Services and tasks provided by the Department include training, technical assistance, information infrastructure, juvenile justice data, planning and evaluation instruments and operational policies and procedures, process facilitation, and funding.

3 James C. Howell, et. al., Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995), p. 9-10.

11

12

The work of the JCPCs is completed in an annual cycle which initiates with the beginning of a new fiscal year and concludes with the ending of that fiscal year. Decisions of the JCPC are driven and supported by data which substantiates the services which are needed in the county but are either unavailable or otherwise inaccessible. A competitive grant process is used to solicit proposals for needed services which otherwise do not exist or are not available in the county. A number of steps and processes are involved in the annual cycle for each JCPC. The Department and County JCPC Task Calendar (see Appendix B.) illustrates the sequence and relationship of the various necessary steps and activities required throughout the year. The calendar not only shows the tasks to be completed by the JCPC, but also details the associated work of the Department in terms of preparation, facilitation, technical assistance and logistical support of those tasks. Information on Services Provided: Components of Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Funded Grants

Since juvenile justice reform, an allocation of JCPC funding has been granted by the General Assembly to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This allocation in turn is distributed to each county to fund local grants which address the needs of juvenile delinquents and their families and youth most likely to become delinquent. Grants provide services which are not otherwise available or accessible in each individual county. Knowledge about what is needed comes from the JCPC’s planning process in each county. Each county JCPC conducts an assessment of local resources and a local Risk and Needs Assessment. The Department provides each JCPC with juvenile justice data specific to each individual county. The Department, through the assigned Area consultant, facilitates a review and discussion of the juvenile justice data. JCPC members add local insight with other sources of local information such as academic achievement, substance abuse, mental health, teen pregnancy, and local crime reports. Through this process, the JCPC determines the conditions and circumstances - risk factors - within the county which increase the likelihood for juveniles to become delinquent or engage in repeated delinquent acts. The JCPC then determines the services and interventions which are needed to negate or off-set the effects of those risk factors. Needed services which are not otherwise available or accessible in the community are then prioritized. Proposals to provide these services are then solicited through a Request for Proposals and a competitive grant process. The planning process and the grant selection process insure that the grants selected and the services provided meet the unique circumstances in each county and allow for implementation of the best combination of services for that county to address reduction and prevention of delinquency. Grants are selected for funding based on factors which include: ability to provide the needed service; ability to work effectively with the juveniles and families intended to be recipients of the service; ability to reduce/prevent delinquent behavior and recidivism; ability to provide interventions which are consistent with research or best practices; ability to competently manage state funds and operate in a cost efficient manner; and ability to maintain records, data, and otherwise be accountable for implementation of the approved grant. Selection of grants is

13

also impacted by the availability of funding. Some grants proposing to provide needed services may not be selected once the county’s funding allocation is committed to higher priority services. In FY 2004-2005, JCPCs funded 542 grants statewide in their efforts to provide a seamless continuum of services to the youth in each of the 100 counties in the State. Each grant consisted of one or more specific service components identified as a “service type”. There are currently twenty-six (26) types of service components, each operating under standards of operation outlined by DJJDP policy. In FY 2004-2005, 709 service components were included in the funded grants. In FY 2005-2006, JCPCs funded 505 grants statewide containing 658 service components in their efforts to provide a seamless continuum of services to the youth in each of the 100 counties in the State. The components provided by the grants provide services and interventions consistent with statute (see Appendix A: GS §143B-550) which lists strategies and concepts that are cited as “effective in preventing juvenile delinquency and substance abuse, and that should be made available as basic services in the communities.” Grants consist of one or more of the following components. COMPONENTS PROVIDING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES:

• Group Home Care: Twenty-four hour care for a residential placement lasting six to eight months The placement is therapeutic and may have a structured family-like environment for youth. Includes intervention with client’s family during and after placement and targets a reduction in offending behavior and recidivism.

• Temporary Shelter Care: Group home care and shelter (up to 90 days) for juveniles who need to be temporarily removed from their homes during a family crisis.

• Runaway Shelter Care: Shelter care for juveniles who have runaway from home, are homeless or otherwise need short term care (10 days or less) while arrangements are made for their return home.

• Specialized Foster Care: Care for youth with serious behavioral or emotional problems through foster parents whose special training is designed to help them understand and provide needed support for children who are placed in their care.

• Temporary Foster Care: Short-term (up to 90 days) emergency foster care for diverted or adjudicated juveniles who need to be temporarily removed from their homes during a family crisis. Foster parents have been specially trained to understand and support the youth placed in their care.

COMPONENTS PROVIDING CLINICAL TREATMENT:

• Counseling: Processional, clinical treatment with a licensed counselor or therapist. Counseling may be one-on-one (individual), family counseling or group counseling. The focus of counseling is to resolve any of a range of problems including but limited to interpersonal relationships, problem behavior, or substance abuse.

• Crisis Counseling: Short-term assistance to juveniles in immediate danger of physical or emotional injury by a helping professional either face-to-face or by phone.

14

• Sex Offender Treatment: Outpatient assessment and/or therapeutic services to juvenile offenders targeting inappropriate sexual conduct and offending behavior with a clear focus on rehabilitation and accountability of the offender. Practiced primarily in groups, the treatment has a family group component or focus, has designated follow-up procedures and is generally legally mandated.

• Psycho-Educational Supportive Counseling: Provides education to help a juvenile better understand his current circumstances and brief interventions to encourage and support him to make more positive decisions.

• Home Based Family Counseling: Short term, intensive services focusing on family interactions/dynamics and their link to delinquent behavior. Involves the entire family and is typically conducted in the home. May also include the availability of a trained individual to respond by phone or in person to crises. The goal is to prevent delinquent and undisciplined behavior by enhancing family functioning and self-sufficiency.

• Intensive Home Visiting: Regular contact with court involved youth in their homes to review supervision conditions of juveniles and to provide guidance to parents regarding, parenting skills and structure. This category is no longer used. Components of this type have been replaced by Home Based Family Counseling components or Parent/Family Skillbulding components.

COMPONENTS PROVIDING ONLY EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT

• Psychological Assessment: Psychological evaluation or assessments to help court counselors and judges recommend the most appropriate consequences and treatment for court involved youth.

RESTORATIVE COMPONENTS:

• Mediation/Conflict Resolution: Provides a process for a juvenile and a victim to resolve a problem or a dispute outside of the formal court process. Mediators do not counsel or give advice but facilitate communication among parties as the parties work to reach their own decisions regarding resolution of their conflict. These components offer immediate and short-term involvement with youth to focus resolving negative and/or offending behaviors.

• Restitution/Community Service: Provides supervised worksites in which juveniles are held accountable for their actions that have affected the community and/or victim(s). Through supervised, assigned work, a juvenile earns credit towards payment of monetary compensation for victims (if required) and performs work for the benefit of the community as a consequence of his offense. Juveniles are supervised by adult staff or trained adult volunteers.

• Teen Court: Provides a diversion from juvenile court where trained adult and youth volunteers act as officials of the court to hear complaints. Recommended sanctions include but are not limited to community service and restitution (if applicable) for youth who have admitted committing minor delinquency and undisciplined complaints. Professional adult staff provides supervision of the court proceedings and any subsequent community service and/or restitution.

15

STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES COMPONENTS: • Mentoring: Matches adult volunteers with delinquent or at-risk youth on a one-on-one

basis. The mentor is an individual providing support, friendship, advice, and/or assistance to the juvenile. After recruitment, screening and training, the mentor spends time with the juvenile on a regular basis and engages in activities such as sports, movies, helping with homework, etc…

Interpersonal Skill Building: Assists juveniles in developing the social skills required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others. The basic skill model begins with an individual’s goals, progresses to how these goals should be translated into appropriate and effective social behaviors, and concludes with the impact of the behavior on the social environment. Typical training techniques are instruction, modeling of behavior, practice and rehearsal, feedback, and reinforcement. May also include training in a set of techniques, such as conflict resolution or decision making, that focus on how to effectively deal with specific types of problems or issues that an individual may confront in interacting with others.

Parent/Family Skill Building: Assists parents/guardians with psychological, behavioral, emotional, or interpersonal issues faced by a parent(s) of a juvenile engaging in problem behaviors or delinquent acts. This component provides parenting skills development, including communication and discipline techniques. May include sessions for parents only and/or sessions for parents and family members.

Experiential Skill Building: Assists juveniles in developing needed skills through the use of outdoor adventures and physical activities or challenges to instruct, demonstrate, and allow the practice of effective interpersonal, problem solving, communication and similar skills to achieve the goals of increasing self-esteem, building interpersonal skills, and building pro-social behavior.

Tutoring/Academic Enhancement: Assists juveniles in understanding and completing schoolwork and/or classes. May assist juveniles and parents with study skills and structure for studying and completing academic assignments. May also provide trips designed to be an enrichment of or supplemental experience beyond the basic educational curriculum.

Vocational Development: The overall emphasis focuses on preparing the juvenile to enter the work force by providing actual employment, job placement, non-paid work service (non-restitution based), job training or career counseling. These programs provide training to juveniles in a specific vocation, career exploration or career counseling, and/or job readiness.

Life Skills Training: Provides opportunities for juveniles to develop the necessary skills to effectively manage every day living. This may include a wide range of issues such as general problem solving, social/moral reasoning, balancing responsibilities, how to deal with housing issues, time, and money management.

Guided Growth: Interventions focus on interpersonal skillbuilding, experiential skillbuilding, vocational development, or life skills training. Components of this category are being reclassified to a more specific type.

Prevention Services: Interventions provide a primary focus on preventing youth from becoming juvenile delinquents by providing counseling, interpersonal skillbuilding, experiential skillbuilding, vocational development, or life skills training. Components of this category are being reclassified to a more specific type.

16

Re-Entry Services: Interventions to help juveniles returning to the community from residential placements cope with transition to their new setting. Components that provide this type of intervention are now classified under as counseling or one of the skillbuilding services.

COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS:

• Juvenile Structured Day: Provides a highly structured and supervised setting for juveniles who are short term or long-term suspended from school or are exhibiting behavior that might otherwise result in placement in detention. Typically, these components serve youth who are court involved and referrals are made from juvenile court counselors. These components may operate on a full or partial day schedule. Interventions include Individual and/or Family Counseling, Substance Abuse Education/Treatment, Restitution/Community Service, Tutoring, Alternative Education, Vocational Development and Structured Activities.

Recipients of the Services: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils JCPC grants are designed to serve youth between the ages of 6 and 17 who are at-risk of becoming involved in undisciplined or delinquent behavior, engaging in delinquent or undisciplined behavior, or who have been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined. During FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, there were a total of 61,288 youth participants in JCPC-funded grant programs. Recipients of services are defined as “youth participants” and are identified as youth admitted into programming, youth receiving services, and youth discharged from programming during a fiscal year. Conducting analysis of the data in this manner is appropriate because admissions to and terminations from programming are continually fluid, and the number of youth participants can account for youth that are being served by grant continuation programs across fiscal years. For example, a youth may enter into programming in April and continue a curriculum-based service well into a new fiscal year in order to successfully complete the service. Therefore, participation stretches across the normal cutoff for a fiscal year. Services are not interrupted due to the end of one fiscal year and the beginning of another. There is a continual flow of services. Of critical importance to recognize is that most programs function in this manner. The strength of these continuation programs lies heavily upon the working knowledge of continuation funding and the county and state partnership in administering JCPC funds. Key to the function of JCPC grants is the knowledge that there are “continuation funds” even though the final award of the grant monies to a program may fluctuate from fiscal year to fiscal year. For purposes of this report the following demographics will be reported on youth participants during FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006: Gender; Juvenile Justice Involvement; Age; Living Arrangements at Admission; School Enrollment Status; Reason for Referral; and Referral Sources. All data are generated from the Client Tracking Access Database Application that grant funded programs must utilize. Males account for about two-thirds of the youth participants in grant funded programs while one-third of youth participants are female. Of these youth, 37.2 percent were identified as youth at-risk participants in FY 2004-2005 and 36.8 percent were identified as youth at-risk participants

17

in FY 2005-2006. Youth at-risk are identified as youth that demonstrate significant inappropriate or anti-social behavior and have a high probability of court involvement. These youth have not been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined but possess many of the risk factors that are strong predictors for delinquent behavior. Exposure to risks such as family conflict and disruption, community drug and alcohol use, academic failure, early and persistent behavior problems in school, and the presence of gangs correlate to high rates for juvenile delinquency.4 The remaining populations served by JCPC grant-funded programming have had some contact with a Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Court Services district office and been diverted into programming or have penetrated the juvenile justice system. Approximately, sixty-three percent of youth served by JCPC grant-funded programs are identified as having contact with or penetrating the juvenile justice system from FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006. (See Juvenile Justice Involvement at Admission of Program Participants Charts)

Gender of Program Participants FY 04-05

Male, 66.7%

Female, 33.3%

4 John A. Pollard, J. David Hawkins, and Michael W. Arthur, “Risk and Protection: Are Both Necessary to Understand Diverse Behavioral Outcomes in Adolescence?” Social Work Research (September 1999): 146-156.

n= 31,400

18

Gender of Program Participants FY 05-06

Male, 66.3%

Female, 33.7%

Juvenile Justice Involvement at Admission of Program Participants FY 04-05

Adult Court Involved,

1.8%

Juvenile Court

Involved, 58.2%

Court Counselor

Consultation, 2.8%

Youth-at-Risk, 37.2%

n= 31,400

n= 29,888

19

Juvenile Justice Involvement at Admission of Program Participants FY 05-06

Court Counselor

Consultation, 2.4%

Youth-at-Risk, 36.8%

Juvenile Court

Involved, 58.5%

Adult Court Involved,

2.2%

An average of 78 percent of youth participants in JCPC grant-funded programs from FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 were10 to 15 years old. With increases noted by the Department in undisciplined populations, there has been a steady increase in youth participants ages 16 and 17. Serving this age range population will become a topic of increasing concern for local JCPCs in their grant-funding deliberations as discussions are occurring statewide that promote inclusion of this population into the juvenile justice service arena. The local JCPC service continuum would be forced to serve larger numbers and older youth in its local continuum.

Admission Age of Program Participants FY 04-05

1%4%

30%

23%26%

12%

4%1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Under7

7 to 9 10 to13 14 15 16 17 Over17

n= 31,400

n= 29,888

20

Admission Age of Program Participants FY 05-06

1%4%

30%

21%

26%

12%

4%1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Under7

7 to 9 10 to13 14 15 16 17 Over17

An average of 48 percent of youth participants are from single parent homes, with approximately 22 percent of youth participants living with both parents (See Living Arrangements at Time of Admissions Charts).

Living Situation at Admission FY 04-05

Foster Care1.7%

Group Home3.0%

Father Only5.6%

Father & Stepmother

2.6%

Both Parents22.7%

Other placement outside of

Home3.4%

Other Relative(s)

8.9%

Mother Only42.3%

Mother & Stepfather

9.8%

Living Situation at Admission FY 05-06

Foster Care2.0%

Group Home3.0%

Father Only5.6%

Father & Stepmother

2.4%

Both Parents22.0%

Other placement outside of

Home3.7%

Other Relative(s)

9.3%

Mother Only42.4%

Mother & Stepfather

9.5%

The school enrollment status of youth participants referred to JCPC grant programs illustrates the extremely high percentage of youth that are enrolled in school at time of referral; note this is at time of referral but not reflective of the histories many of these youth have which include multiple short-term and long-term suspensions. In both FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, 94 percent were enrolled in school at time of referral while only 5 percent were long-term

n= 31,400

n= 29,888

n= 29,888

21

suspended or expelled while 1 percent had dropped out (See School Enrollment Status at Admission Charts).

School Status at Admission FY 04-05

Dropped Out

1.3%

Expelled or Long Term Suspended

4.9%

Enrolled or completed: school, or

other academic program93.8%

School Status at Admission FY 05-06

Dropped Out

1.3%

Expelled or Long Term Suspended

4.7%

Enrolled or completed: school, or

other academic program

94%

An average of 66.9 percent of youth participants are referred to grant programs for problems identified as delinquent behavior (person, property, and victimless crimes). Youth participants that committed status offenses or were considered ungovernable account for an average of 20.1 percent of youth participants during FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 (See Reasons for Referral Charts).

Reason for Referral for Participants FY 04-05

Runaway1%

Truancy2%

Ungovern-able 17%

Neglected1%

Dependent0.3%

Abused1%

Problem behavior (person crime)27%

Problem behavior (property

crime)23%

Problem behavior

(victimless crime)17%

Other11%

n= 31,400

n= 31,400

n= 29,888

22

Reason for Referral for Participants FY 05-06

Problem behavior (person crime)27.0%

Problem behavior (property

crime)23.1%

Problem behavior

(victimless crime)17.1%

Other11.9% Neglected

0.8%Dependent

0.4%Abused

0.5%

Ungovern-able 14.7%

Truancy3.3%

Runaway1.2%

About 56 percent of youth participants were referred from district juvenile service offices with the remaining participant referrals coming from the school, law enforcement, resource officer, DSS as well as other child-serving entities (See Referral Source for Program Participants Charts).

In keeping with GS 143-549, JCPCs have not only continued to fund dispositional option programming as a priority but seriously consider the risk and needs data in their respective

Referral Source FY 04-05

Juvenile Court56.4%

Clergy0.1%

DSS2.9%

School Resource

Officer5.6%

Secure Custody

0.1%

Self0.7%

School15.8%

Parent/Guardian

6.3%

Other5.7%

Multi-purpose Home0.0%

Mental Health1.2%

Law Enforcement

5.2%

Referral Source FY 05-06

Juvenile Court56.5%

Clergy0.0%

DSS3.0%

School Resource

Officer5.4%

Secure Custody

0.0%

Self0.7%

School15.2%

Parent/Guardian

6.6%

Other6.0%

Multi-purpose Home0.1%

Mental Health1.3%

Law Enforcement

5.2%

n= 31,400

n= 29,888

n= 29,888

23

communities in identifying services needed that are unique to each individual county populations. Resource Requirements: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils The resource requirements for implementing JCPCs begin with reliance upon continuation funding that reflects the State and Local Partnership mentioned earlier and extend to requirements related to providing services to an increasing population, policy guidelines, county/local matching funds, an improved database and capacity to employ it, enhanced accountability, and critical program operation needs such as transportation. The need for evaluation also adds to the JCPC resource requirements. In 1978 the North Carolina General Assembly set forth a grass-roots effort to provide delinquency prevention funding for community-based programming in all 100 counties in the State of North Carolina. This structure laid out by the legislature encouraged a partnership between local county governments and the State. Local county Youth Services Advisory Councils were established and designated to assist with delinquency prevention planning and programming efforts. The success of this structure and the impact on the youth served in every county accounted for the legislature’s confidence in a community-based planning model. Along with that confidence came recurring funds to address delinquency prevention planning efforts at he local level. With the passage of the North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998, JCPCs evolved from what was once Youth Services Advisory Councils and heavy emphasis was placed on the methodology of a comprehensive evidence-based approach to addressing delinquency at the community level. One of the benefits reflected by this change was inclusion of local decision makers in the process. This new approach relied on the completion of JCPC legislated tasks annually and the continued use of a recurring fund base to address targeted delinquency prevention and intervention service needs. For thirty years, North Carolina has provided the infrastructure, the partnership, and the recurring fund base which has allowed a continual, structured decision-making process and promised the fluidity of prevention and intervention funds at the local county level, a vital key to service continuum building. The halt to this recurring fund base, however, will systematically impact the local service continuum. Re-establishment of recurring funds is vitally necessary to prevent interruption of services to North Carolina’s youth in all 100 counties. From 1998 to 2007, the statewide youth population ages 10-17 increased 19 percent, while JCPC funding statewide has been essentially flat. During this nine-year period, JCPC funding has averaged around $22.4 million. Although the state funding allocation has fluctuated from $21.7 million in FY 1999-2000 to a high of $23 million in FY 2004-2005, JCPC funding has essentially remained stagnant. During this same time span, however, youth development center population commitments have decreased by approximately 70% since the formation of the Department. With virtually no shift in funding from YDC commitments to the “front end” of the Juvenile Justice system over this nine-year period, local service continuums have had to absorb significant increases in youth programming needs in the community with virtually no increase in JCPC grant funded resources. JCPC grant funded program capacity has been severely limited by this fact. At the same time, the generation of gaps in services within the local service continuum due to mental health reform, ballooning increases in the number of long-term and

24

short-term suspended youth, increases in school dropouts, and the surge of gang-related activity in communities have created a critical need for expanded JCPC funded programs and services.

JCPC funded grant programs have steadily responded to the target population stressors by serving greater numbers of youth since the Department’s inception; however, capacity expansions are limited without increases in funds to support the targeted population being served. The constraints on available resources and limited funding can only deepen the complexity of these problems that are being faced statewide. Beyond partnership and population, policy guides much of the fiscal and programmatic resource requirements for JCPC grant funded programs. Programmatically, the type of service provided by the grant dictates the qualification and credentialing of staff employed or whether a facility needs licensure for the service provided. Staff to youth ratios must fall within the minimum standard guidelines for a program type. Overall, JCPC funded grants were supported by an average of 1213 full time equivalent (FTEs) positions during FY2004-2005 and FY2005-2006. Grants rely heavily upon the local workforce to support programming for youth. Fiscal policy requires that JCPC grant-funds leverage a local match of 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent to support Department funds allocated to a grant provider. The State is divided into thirds with one-third of the counties providing a 10 percent match, one-third providing a 20 percent match and one-third providing a 30 percent match, based on economic indicators. Local matching resources come in the form of cash and/or in-kind support from varying sources in the local community. During FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, JCPC grant-funded programs generated $12,310,186 and $12,561,436, respectively, of matching cash and in-kind local support to grants providing prevention and intervention efforts in the community. Leveraging community matching revenue sources against JCPC grant funds promotes ownership by the local community of its grant programs. Again, the State and local partnership is key to the success of addressing delinquency prevention and intervention efforts at the local county level. Resource requirements also surface in relation to JCPC data. For thirty years, the State has utilized a client tracking database for reporting demographic and impact data on youth participants in grant-funded programs. Prior to 2002, all grant-funded programs submitted paper reports to an Area Office where a processing assistant keyed data into a client tracking database application. In an effort to improve reporting, in 2002 with no additional supportive funding, the Department modified the application to an Access Visual Basic database and distributed it statewide to all grant-funded programs to promote data entry at the program level. The use of the Internet and email attachments has now become the accepted means of transmitting the client tracking data from JCPC grant-funded programs to the Area Offices. Though multiple layering of data transmission is a cumbersome and antiquated means with which to operate, this is the only system of data collection that can be supported at the time. The current database application was never originally designed to be utilized in this manner, and the Department has constantly encountered and corrected technical issues both at the State and local levels. Support services from the Department’s Information Technology team have provided assistance but the entire data reporting system needs enhancement in both design and utilization. A web-based application (estimated cost $125,000) would greatly improve program accountability, enhance the Department’s ability to interface with its current NC-JOIN database that serves the court services population, and enable better legislative reporting. Three additional Information Technology and

25

research staff are needed to implement the enhanced databases, web-based application, and improved program evaluation capacity (estimated annual cost $200,000). Resources are also required to enhance accountability. Currently, there are ten area consultants that provide oversight and technical assistance to 100 JCPCs and over 500 grant-funded providers statewide. To ensure the fiscal integrity and evidenced-based delinquency prevention and intervention strategies are in place at the county and programmatic levels, the consultant becomes an integral part of the planning efforts locally. Consultants attend and participate in all levels of the annual planning process and additionally, provide technical assistance and training to grant providers and JCPCs. Furthermore, on-site monitoring of local grant-funded programs is the only mechanism that can insure program integrity and improvement. Given the depth of technical tasks that the JCPC must complete and the limited manpower available, there is a need for additional personnel to support the complexity of the tasks that must be completed annually. To ensure that programs are consistently and uniformly monitored, there is a need for more personnel serving in these roles. In order to ensure the fiscal integrity of all programs in a region, there is a need for eight additional consultants: four for enhancing the level of technical assistance and program monitoring and evaluation (estimated annual cost $200,000) and four for managing the internal audit functions of over 500 JCPC funded grant programs (estimated annual cost $200,000). Resources related to critical program needs exist as grant programs providing services at the county level strive to work within their limited budgets. Often, a JCPC will work as a team to provide support among and between programs by, for example, sharing resources, transferring underutilized funds from one program to a program of need, or teaming with other professionals to provide additional support services to youth and their families. A critical need that programs constantly report is the need for additional monies to support transportation of youth and families to and from programming. (See results of JCPC Provider Survey in the Consequences of Discontinuing Program Funding and Recommendations for Program Improvements sections of this report.) Rural counties particularly struggle with meeting the transportation needs of youth participating in programs. The economic impact of rising gas prices has certainly been felt. Additional funding to support transportation costs for programs is considered a need for most if not all funded programs. Finally, there are resource requirements related to the need for evaluating JCPCs. With the passage of the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North Carolina became the second state (Washington being the first) to mandate that only evidenced-based services for juvenile offenders would be eligible for state funding. The Act required the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to ensure that only effective programs receive State funds as well as to conduct an evaluation of programs funded through the State’s JCPC infrastructure. The optimum approach to such an evaluation would be to assess the impact of each of the funded programs with reference to outcomes; however, such impact evaluations are expensive and require specialized research resources which were not provided to the Department. Given this situation, the Department looked to what other states were doing to evaluate programs. Many states were moving forward with what were variously called “evidence-based,” “research-based,” or “best-practice” programs but with little evidence about the effects of taking such programs to scale in a statewide system and no ready means of determining success. Movement

26

to adopt “model programs” was also a popular approach to evidence-based practice. Model programs are specific named programs that have been evaluated and found effective in prior research studies. In North Carolina, few existing programs were model programs of this sort. Moreover, to have any assurance that those programs would be effective when local providers attempt to replicate them, they would need to be applied very much like they were in the research studies—with similar juveniles and with faithful adherence to the original program protocols for the nature and amount of service. In practice, model programs are frequently modified and adapted to at least some extent when implemented locally. The model program approach to ensuring that the Department fund only effective programs and then assess them to ensure that they are effective would require massive retraining of program providers and close monitoring of each program to ensure that the respective models were being implemented with fidelity. A variation of the model programs approach, therefore, was considered and ultimately chosen by the Department. This approach identifies research evidence applicable to existing programs and uses that evidence to develop standards by which those programs can be evaluated with regard to how closely the services they deliver match those shown to be effective in that research. In this approach, what constitutes a program is defined more broadly than in the model program approach, thus relevant research studies will encompass some diversity of program variations, participants, and settings. Systematic synthesis of the findings of all the research studies of the effects of a particular type of program, using a technique known as meta-analysis5, is then used to identify the program characteristics that are associated with the most positive outcomes and which, therefore, provide the basis for guidelines about effective practice. The synthesis approach is thus similar to the model program approach in its reliance on previous research conducted someplace other than the local implementation. It differs from that approach by focusing on generic types of programs rather than specific named programs, by drawing on a larger body of research evidence about the effectiveness of those programs, and by providing less rigid guidelines for program practice. It is similar to the model program approach, however, by requiring evidence of effectiveness and using that evidence to develop standards for effective practice that can be used to assess the performance of any given program and to guide program improvement. The Department chose the “meta-analysis” approach to achieve its goal of instituting evidence-based practices and to meet its statutory requirements to evaluate JCPC programs given the context of limited resources. The Department contracted with Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell and Dr. Mark W. Lipsey and his staff at Vanderbilt University’s Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology to develop a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of JCPC funded delinquency prevention programs. The outcome of this work produced The Standardized Program Evaluation (SPEP) tool. To date, JCPC grant-funded program providers strive to replicate and apply effective interventions from the evaluation research that supports the SPEP by attempting to apply the optimal mix of primary and supplemental services, duration and frequency of the service, and service delivery to the appropriate age and risk level of youth into their program practices. Additionally, the review of SPEP scoring has been incorporated into the JCPC annual planning 5 Meta-analysis is a technique for statistically representing and analyzing findings from a set of empirical research studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

27

and funding process. Grant-funded programs are recommended to incorporate into programming the most effective programmatic characteristics that the research-base suggests reduces recidivism while at the same time function with little to no increases in their grant funds. Those that have taken measures to modify their service delivery to align with SPEP such as adding additional supplemental services or extending the duration of programming to targeted youth have had to reduce their numbers of youth served due to funding constraints. Changing the dynamics of service delivery continues to be an important role for the consultant and additional resources are needed from both a technical and fiscal perspective to assist local grant programs with alignment of suitable programmatic features that are well matched with the local continuum of services. Project resources needed to fully implement the SPEP tool for program development and program evaluation will entail the addition of one new staff person in the Department’s Information Technology section to manage SPEP and to work on furthering the ability of SPEP to generate SPEP ratings for JCPC funded grant programs that cannot currently generate these ratings (estimated annual cost $80,000). Also, additional training of JCPC grant program providers by area consultants and a contracted SPEP consultant are needed to assist Department staff in further build-out of the SPEP tool and integration with Department databases ($10,000). Taken together, the resources required for JCPCs reflect an investment in prevention as intended by statute. An investment in prevention translates into savings now and into the future. Meeting the resource requirements of JCPCs represents a “best buy” for the State given that other costs in both the juvenile justice and adult corrections systems can be avoided and the public can be better protected from juvenile delinquency and crime. Summary and Conclusion Section one of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provides “A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of services, and the resource requirements.” It conveys that there are historical and research contexts which set forth a framework for JCPCs; an emphasis found in these contexts is prevention. Information about the JCPC program is presented in terms of the State-Local Partnership it reflects. Detail about JCPC services and recipients evidences the broad range and reach of program operations, and a delineation of resource requirements sets forth that these requirements reflect an investment that translates into savings now and in the future. APPENDIX A: GS § 143B-543. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils

Part 6. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. § 143B-543. Legislative intent.

It is the intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at risk from becoming delinquent. The primary intent of this Part is to develop community-based alternatives to youth development centers and to provide community-based delinquency and substance abuse prevention strategies and programs. Additionally, it is the intent of

28

the General Assembly to provide noninstitutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and the juveniles.

These programs and services shall be planned and organized at the community level and developed in partnership with the State. These planning efforts shall include appropriate representation from local government, local public and private agencies serving juveniles and their families, local business leaders, citizens with an interest in youth problems, youth representatives, and others as may be appropriate in a particular community. The planning bodies at the local level shall be the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2001-95, s. 5.) § 143B-544. Creation; method of appointment; membership; chair and vice-chair.

(a) As a prerequisite for a county receiving funding for juvenile court services and delinquency prevention programs, the board of commissioners of a county shall appoint a Juvenile Crime Prevention Council. Each County Council is a continuation of the corresponding Council created under G.S. 147-33.61. The County Council shall consist of not more than 26 members and should include, if possible, the following:

(1) The local school superintendent, or that person's designee; (2) A chief of police in the county; (3) The local sheriff, or that person's designee; (4) The district attorney, or that person's designee; (5) The chief court counselor, or that person's designee; (6) The director of the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and

substance abuse authority, or that person's designee; (7) The director of the county department of social services, or

consolidated human services agency, or that person's designee; (8) The county manager, or that person's designee; (9) A substance abuse professional; (10) A member of the faith community; (11) A county commissioner; (12) Two persons under the age of 18 years, one of whom is a member of

the State Youth Council; (13) A juvenile defense attorney; (14) The chief district court judge, or a judge designated by the chief district

court judge; (15) A member of the business community; (16) The local health director, or that person's designee; (17) A representative from the United Way or other nonprofit agency; (18) A representative of a local parks and recreation program; and (19) Up to seven members of the public to be appointed by the board of

commissioners of a county. The board of commissioners of a county shall modify the County Council's

membership as necessary to ensure that the members reflect the racial and socioeconomic diversity of the community and to minimize potential conflicts of interest by members.

29

(b) Two or more counties may establish a multicounty Juvenile Crime Prevention Council under subsection (a) of this section. The membership shall be representative of each participating county.

(c) The members of the County Council shall elect annually the chair and vice-chair. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2001-199, s. 1.) § 143B-545. Terms of appointment.

Each member of a County Council shall serve for a term of two years, except for initial terms as provided in this section. Each member's term is a continuation of that member's term under G.S. 147-33.62. Members may be reappointed. The initial terms of appointment began January 1, 1999. In order to provide for staggered terms, persons appointed for the positions designated in subdivisions (9), (10), (12), (15), (17), and (18) of G.S. 143B-544(a) were appointed for an initial term ending on June 30, 2000. The initial term of the second member added to each County Council pursuant to G.S. 143B-544(a)(12) shall begin on July 1, 2001, and end on June 30, 2002. After the initial terms, persons appointed for the positions designated in subdivisions (9), (10), (12), (15), (17), and (18) of G.S. 143B-544(a) shall be appointed for two-year terms, beginning on July 1. All other persons appointed to the Council were appointed for an initial term ending on June 30, 2001, and, after those initial terms, persons shall be appointed for two-year terms beginning on July 1. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 1999-423, s. 15; 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2001-199, s. 2.) § 143B-546. Vacancies; removal.

Appointments to fill vacancies shall be for the remainder of the former member's term.

Members shall be removed only for malfeasance or nonfeasance as determined by the board of county commissioners. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b).) § 143B-547. Meetings; quorum.

County Councils shall meet at least bimonthly, or more often if a meeting is called by the chair.

A majority of members constitutes a quorum. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 1999-423, s. 16; 2000-137, s. 1(b).) § 143B-548. Compensation of members.

Members of County Councils shall receive no compensation but may receive a per diem in an amount established by the board of county commissioners. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b).) § 143B-549. Powers and duties.

(a) Each County Council shall review annually the needs of juveniles in the county who are at risk of delinquency or who have been adjudicated undisciplined or delinquent and the resources available to address those needs. The Council shall develop

30

and advertise a request for proposal process and submit a written plan of action for the expenditure of juvenile sanction and prevention funds to the board of county commissioners for its approval. Upon the county's authorization, the plan shall be submitted to the Department for final approval and subsequent implementation.

(b) Each County Council shall ensure that appropriate intermediate dispositional options are available and shall prioritize funding for dispositions of intermediate and community-level sanctions for court-adjudicated juveniles under minimum standards adopted by the Department.

(c) On an ongoing basis, each County Council shall: (1) Assess the needs of juveniles in the community, evaluate the adequacy

of resources available to meet those needs, and develop or propose ways to address unmet needs.

(2) Evaluate the performance of juvenile services and programs in the community. The Council shall evaluate each funded program as a condition of continued funding.

(3) Increase public awareness of the causes of delinquency and of strategies to reduce the problem.

(4) Develop strategies to intervene and appropriately respond to and treat the needs of juveniles at risk of delinquency through appropriate risk assessment instruments.

(5) Provide funds for services for treatment, counseling, or rehabilitation for juveniles and their families. These services may include court-ordered parenting responsibility classes.

(6) Plan for the establishment of a permanent funding stream for delinquency prevention services.

(d) The Councils may examine the benefits of joint program development between counties within the same judicial district. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b).) § 143B-550. Funding for programs.

(a) Annually, the Department shall develop and implement a funding mechanism for programs that meet the standards developed under this Part. The Department shall ensure that the guidelines for the State and local partnership's funding process include the following requirements:

(1) Fund effective programs. – The Department shall fund programs that it determines to be effective in preventing delinquency and recidivism. Programs that have proven to be ineffective shall not be funded.

(2) Use a formula for the distribution of funds. – A funding formula shall be developed that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their communities.

(3) Allow and encourage local flexibility. – A vital component of the State and local partnership established by this section is local flexibility to determine how best to allocate prevention and alternative funds.

31

(4) Combine resources. – Counties shall be allowed and encouraged to combine resources and services.

(b) The Department shall adopt rules to implement this section. The Department shall provide technical assistance to County Councils and shall require them to evaluate all State-funded programs and services on an ongoing and regular basis.

(c) The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall report to the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety no later than March 1, 2006, and annually thereafter, on the results of the alternatives to commitment demonstration programs funded by Section 16.7 of S.L. 2004-124. The 2007 report and all annual reports thereafter shall also include projects funded by Section 16.11 of S.L. 2005-276 for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. Specifically, the report shall provide a detailed description of each of the demonstration programs, including the numbers of juveniles served, their adjudication status at the time of service, the services/treatments provided, the length of service, the total cost per juvenile, and the six- and 12-month recidivism rates for the juveniles after the termination of program services. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2005-276, s. 16.11(c).) §§ 143B-551 through 143B-555. Reserved for future codification purposes.

32

33

34

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS: JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:

MEANINGFUL MEASURES OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND WHETHER THE PROGRAM IS MEETING THESE MEASURES

SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The second section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.” A logic model (see Figure One) will be utilized to facilitate understanding of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) framework of operation. This model will be followed by formative and summative evaluation information which addresses “meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.” This discussion will examine for FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 the funded grant program effectiveness in meeting or exceeding measurable objectives, a discussion of systematic interventions by Department staff and local JCPCs in response to issues of program effectiveness, a description of factors impacting JCPC grant funding continuation decisions, a data-based analysis of performance measures and outcomes of JCPC grant programs for FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 as required by G.S. 143B-519(b)1), and a description of the Standardized Program Evaluation Profile as a tool used by Department staff and local JCPCs for program planning and effectiveness evaluation. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Performance: A Logic Model Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) are the foundation of North Carolina’s comprehensive strategy to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and crime. They operate in all 100 North Carolina counties. They reflect an infrastructure best described in terms of a state – local partnership between the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and county representatives. One approach to examining how well JCPCs perform is in terms of a logic model (see Figure One) which lays out assumptions, inputs, processes, outcomes, and external factors which may impact their operation.

35

LOGIC MODEL (DIAGRAM A)

36

The logic model framework is one used in performance auditing. It enables the examination of performance from detail to the “big picture” and affords some understanding of the flow of operations. For JCPCs, the model offers that there are a number of assumptions, including statute, recurring funding being available, the value of a state-local partnership, a prevention research foundation, a system of graduated sanctions, the essential contributions of local knowledge and decisions, and pooled resources. These assumptions under gird the flow of inputs, processes, and outputs. The inputs include funding (both State and county; dollars as well as in-kind), data, knowledge, plans, people (including the JCPC members themselves), and commitment. Processes reference “activities” that are being “performed”; with JCPCs, in addition to service delivery or programming, activities ranges from planning, training, and contracting to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting. “Activities” also include for JCPCs their critical role in diverting youth form court and more costly juvenile justice services. Who participates in JCPCs falls into the realm of processes in the logic model as well. Not only are youth involved but many others (families; program providers and staff; schools; law enforcement; courts; counties / communities) play roles in the JCPC flow. With regard to outcomes, the logic model offers an opportunity to delineate beyond simplistic thinking regarding outcomes to a break down of what is achieved in the short term, into the near term, and beyond. This delineation works extremely well with JCPCs because it allows illustration that youth involvement in JCPCs itself has immediate benefit because the youth are engaged in positive rather than negative activities Such positive activities allow the youth to develop competencies or skills that include but are not limited to academic, social, emotional, and vocational skills. They also lead to developing positive relationships, a sense of “connectedness” for youth to positive social institutions such as school, accountability toward victims and society, and an enhancement of public safety. The medium term outcomes build on these with negative behaviors being replaced by positive ones because of skill development and all of the other short term outcomes being strengthened. Finally, the long term outcomes reflect sustained behavior change and youth becoming productive citizens, both juvenile and adult crime being reduced and public safety being enhanced, and costs associated with crime reduction being reallocated to more prevention efforts in juvenile justice so that appropriate actions and focus involve prevention and early intervention rather than court and deep-system costs. External factors as offered by the logic model can impact the successful operation of JCPCs. JCPCs have very little control over changes in society but are impacted by them and have to adjust to operating given that changes represent constant forces that require adaptation. For example, changes to the mental health system through its “reform” have resulted in the need for mental health services in the JCPC arena given the needs of the target population. Changes in technology have thrusted everyone, including JCPCs, into an information age in which it is challenging to keep pace with limited resources. And changes in the budget reflected by this continuation review report have created uncertainty for JCPC programs and have affected staff and program operations.

37

Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures Given the framework of the logic model, a move to meaningfully measuring program performance is easily made as the rationale of processes and outcomes translates into the evaluation frameworks of formative and summative evaluations. Formative evaluation techniques focus on activities or processes; summative focus on outcomes. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention conducts both as it works to manage and administer the JCPC approach in the State. The objectives of such management and administration include need-directed planning using data, data-driven decisions, program development and improvement, program defunding if warranted, and assessment of outcome achievement. The Department carries out formative evaluation via its monitoring of performance and carries out summative evaluation via annual analysis that is reported to the General Assembly as well as employment of the meta-analysis supported Standard Program Evaluation Protocol. Formative Evaluation: Monitoring JCPCs and Their Program Performance - Quality Assurance Interventions When the Department or a local JCPC determines that, through joint monitoring of local JCPC grantees, a program is not producing desired results or is otherwise ineffective in addressing program participant needs, a continuum of interventions may be implemented aimed at quality assurance by either entity, depending on the severity or pervasiveness of the shortcomings or ineffectiveness of the individual program. For example, if the curriculum of a JCPC funded service provider is not producing improved academic performance, the Department area consultant for the involved JCPC may work with the service provider to develop a Corrective Action Plan that provides the program staff with appropriate technical assistance in this important area of program operation. Alternately, if the grantee is having difficulty in managing the financial aspects of its program, the local JCPC may bring program provider staff together with staff from the County manager’s office skilled at assisting the program provider in this area of intervention. In cases where the local service provider is either unwilling or incapable of implementing their JCPC grant funded program in accordance with its objectives, the local JCPC and the Department’s area consultant work together to take actions appropriate to the individual program. These interventions may include a variety of interventions in response to the severity of the situation. These interventions may include but are not limited to more intensive and frequent monitoring and on-site visitation, documenting instances of the inability to implement important program components or curriculum, documenting non-responsiveness by the program provider in carrying out the corrective actions in a Corrective Action Plan, inviting third-party evaluators to observe the program and provide a report, and interviews of program participants and/or their parents. If there is clear evidence over time of the inability or unwillingness of program providers to implement the grant program in accordance with the provisions of the Program Agreement (including program measurable objectives), then a recommendation to the JCPC may be made (with appropriate documentation) that a grantee’s program funding be discontinued immediately.

38

In FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, JCPCs made decisions that resulted in not continuing funding of a total of 103 local service provider grants. The reasons for making these decisions were varied (see Figure Two). Two decision categories align with situations discussed above: lack of effectiveness (lack of program objectives met) and services did not meet JCPC policy requirements (eg., poor management). In FY 2004-2005, 44 percent of those program grants whose funding was not continued by JCPCs were discontinued due to either lack of effectiveness or services did not meet JCPC policy requirements. Similarly, in FY 2005-2006, 34 percent of those program grants whose funding was not continued were for either lack of effectiveness or services did not meet JCPC policy requirements. In sum, the Department and local JCPCs systematically monitoring and evaluate the effectiveness of JCPC funded grants and take appropriate actions, including discontinuing funding, in cases where programs are ineffective and/or simply did not meet the policy requirements in their grant Program Agreement with the county JCPC. An additional point should be made that when JCPC funded grants are suspected of possible financial wrongdoing and those suspicions are brought to the Department’s attention, financial reviews are immediately initiated to determine the validity of the suspicions. Since July, 2004, five such reviews have been conducted by the Internal Audit section of the Department. Two of the reviews resulted in suspended funding and requirements that accounting processes be improved before funding eligibility would be restored, one required revamped policies and procedures, one found no problems, and one warranted contacting the SBI due to suspected criminal activity.

Figure Two: Factors Related to JCPC Grantee Funding Continuation Decisions

Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005

4%

15%

40%

28%13% Lack of effectiveness

Duplication of services

Services did not meet JCPCpolicy requirements

Communities needs betterserved by another program

Program dissolved or did notreapply

n = 53

Lack of effectiveness

Duplication of services

Services did not meet JCPC policy requirements

Communities needs better served by another program

Program dissolved or did not reapply

2 7 8 21 15

39

Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006

10%

10%

28%24%

28%Lack of effectiveness

Duplication of services

Services did not meet JCPCpolicy requirements

Communities needs betterserved by another programProgram dissolved or did notreapply

n =50

Lack of effectiveness

Duplication of services

Services did not meet JCPC policy requirements

Communities needs better served by another program

Program dissolved or did not reapply

5 5 14 12 14

Formative Evaluation: Monitoring JCPCs and Their Program Performance - Effectiveness Based on Meeting Measurable Objectives Each year local JCPCs publish a Request for Proposals, based on risk and needs assessments for at-risk and juvenile court-involved youth. In that Request for Proposals, specific program development priorities are established for JCPC-funded programs for the coming fiscal year. In each proposal received from a potential grantee, the grantee must establish measurable objectives as performance indicators of success for their proposed program. For example, a program grantee may establish a measurable objective of improving school attendance by 20 percent among program participants, while another program grantee may include an objective to focuses on decreasing subsequent offenses by program participants by 40 percent over the initial year of the program’s operation. Once funded by the local JCPC, the service provider (grantee) provides periodic measures of the success of its program via assessment of the program’s measurable objectives. In FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, the measurable objectives taken from the Program Agreements for each local grantee yielded data on program effectiveness (program objectives not met) in four major categories: school; public safety; family/peer relationships; and skill development. The local JCPC grantee program effectiveness outcomes based on ungrouped measurable program objectives are depicted below in Figure Three. These data clearly demonstrate the high level of effectiveness of these local JCPC grant services in addressing the four major categories of program objectives. For example, in FY 2004-2005, 87 percent of the local program grantees who targeted reduction in offending (n=342) met or exceeded their program objective with 89 percent of programs meeting or exceeding this objective in FY 2005-2006.

40

Figure Three: Local JCPC Program Grantee Percent of Measurable Objectives Met FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 FISCAL

YEAR 2004-2005 N =463

FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 N = 495

JCPC PROGRAM AGREEMENT OBJECTIVE Number

Program Agreements

with Objective

Number Met or Exceed

Objective

% Meeting or

Exceeding Program

Objectives

Number Program

Agreements with Objective

Number Met or Exceed Objective

% Meeting or

Exceeding Program

Objectives SCHOOL OBJECTIVES:

IMPROVE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

134 112 84%

159 141 89%

SUSPENDED 82 68 83% 113 101 89% IMPROVE ACADEMICS 115 93 81% 122 99 81% TUTORING 2 2 100% 6 6 100% IMPROVE SCHOOL BEHAVIOR

158 137 87%

179 156 87%

PUBLIC SAFETY OBJECTIVES:

REDUCE OFFENDING 342 298 87% 371 330 89% REDUCE OFFENDING FOR SPECIFIC OFFENSE 48 40 83%

53 47 89%

VICTIM NEEDS 23 18 78% 19 12 63% RESTITUTION 29 24 83% 51 39 76% COMMUNITY SERVICE 37 29 78% 46 36 78% COMPLETE SANCTIONS 85 61 72% 63 52 83%

FAMILY/PEER RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES: RETURN HOME 30 25 83% 27 22 81% PARENT RELATIONSHIPS 91 71 78% 120 100 83% PEER RELATIONSHIPS 38 33 87% 57 46 81%

SKILL DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES: ANGER MANAGEMENT SKILLS

26 21 81%

40 32 80%

COMMUNICATION SKILLS 50 41 82% 77 65 84% JOB SKILLS 18 12 67% 24 20 83% PROVIDE COUNSELING 59 48 81% 57 48 84%

Likewise, in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, 87 percent of local JCPC grantees who had a major program objective focusing on improving school behavior met or exceeded their objective for that year of operation. In summary, this consistent pattern of meeting or exceeding individual JCPC grantee program objectives is further evidence of the effectiveness of local JCPC program implementation in response to specific needs of youth identified by the county JCPC. In conclusion, the significantly high level of program effectiveness as demonstrated by program outcomes objectives attainment is the result of many interrelated factors. Among them are judicious decision making by local JCPCs to match youth needs to appropriate service providers (grantees). Secondly, once funded Department area consultants work with these grantees on a regular basis providing training and technical assistance ol strategies to improve programming and other services provided. Third, Department staff and local JCPCs work in concert with

41

service providers through periodic monitoring to assess individual program effectiveness over the course of the grant fiscal year. Summative Evaluation: Analyzing JCPCs and Their Program Performance - Measures and Outcomes Based on Statutory Provisions

The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports about measures and outcomes reflective of JCPC performance annually to the General Assembly. The Department is required by G.S. 143B-519(b) (1) to report on performance related to:

a) Reduced subsequent complaints b) Reduced convictions for subsequent offenses c) Reduced violations of terms of community supervision d) Fulfilled restitution to victims e) Increased parental accountability f) Reduced use of alcohol and controlled substance

For these reports, the Department uses two data sources: the North Carolina Juvenile On-Line Information Network (NC-JOIN) and the JCPC database Client Tracking. NC-JOIN is a secure web-based application that manages the Department’s confidential juvenile information regarding complaints, court actions, activities involving the supervision of juveniles under the jurisdiction of the Department as well as information regarding admissions and supervision of detained juveniles and juveniles in Youth Development Centers. NC-JOIN became operational beginning in January, 2004. The basic structure of Client Tracking comes from a legacy system developed many years ago. The data come from electronic files (diskettes and emailed data-tables) as submitted by individual program providers to the Department’s area offices where the data is compiled and transferred to a central database. The data in client tracking is based on program admissions and terminations rather than individual juvenile records. Program staff are responsible for updating the data records and submitting them in a timely fashion to the Department. Important to note is that Client Tracking is not currently integrated with NC-JOIN which creates challenges for the conduct of summative evaluations. The Department’s initial plan for the development of NC-JOIN included the “marriage” of these two databases; however, funding for such an action has never been provided. Hurdles beyond the different structures of the two databases would need to be overcome. Creating a database for both non court involved and court involved youth, one which has the necessary security in place to keep juvenile information confidential, requires the replacement of the current Client Tracking database with a secure web-based system that is designed to integrate with NC-JOIN. An additional hurdle involves the current practice of JCPC funded program staff being the key input source for program data. Most programs do not have the capacity to carry out this function in a way that meets evaluation standards and practice.

42

With the above said about the databases, the performance measure outcomes which target the JCPC annual evaluation were derived from analysis of JCPC data from Client Tracking as well as juvenile court data from NC-JOIN. Again, these measures are:

a) Reduced subsequent complaints b) Reduced convictions for subsequent offenses c) Reduced violations of terms of community supervision d) Fulfilled restitution to victims e) Increased parental accountability f) Reduced use of alcohol and controlled substance

Using these measures was discussed with staff from Fiscal Research Division for addressing “Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting Those Measures” for the continuation review. Fiscal Research Division approved their use as well as use of two of fiscal year data years (FY 2004 -2005 and FY 2005-2006). The specific methodological approach for each measure is detailed in Appendix A: Methodology for the Measurement of Performance Outcomes. Additional statistics which include analysis by program component type are presented in Appendix B: Program Performance Data Outcome Tables.

Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures: Performance Measure (a): Reduced Subsequent Complaints An important outcome for JCPC programs is impact on public safety. One would anticipate that if program objectives are met, then juveniles and their families would receive services that would ultimately result in a reduction of subsequent delinquent complaints. To ensure that reductions in subsequent complaints were not due to the “aging-out” of the sample from the juvenile system, this analysis examined juveniles who were 15 and half years of age or younger at the time of program completion with a six month follow-up. This sample represented about 65 percent of JCPC terminations for these years. A termination occurs when a juvenile completes the program or is withdrawn / removed from the JCPC program. . The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure Four: Reduction of Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs.

43

Reduction of Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs

9450

8861

4552 4589

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

FY 04-'05 FY 05-'06

Cou

nt o

f Del

inqu

ent C

ompl

aint

s R

ecei

ved

Count of Delinquent Complaints Six Months Prior to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lowerCount of Delinquent Complaints Six Months at or Subsequent to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower

Figure Four: Reduced Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs

For FY 2004-2005, there were 9,450 total delinquent complaints six months prior to program completion date. There were 4552 total delinquent complaints six months at or following program completion date. This constitutes a 51.8 percent reduction in subsequent delinquent complaints. For FY 2005-2006, there were 8,861 total delinquent complaints six months prior to program completion date. There were 4589 total delinquent complaints six months at or following program completion date. This constitutes a 48.2 percent reduction in subsequent delinquent complaints. These are positive results with reference to juvenile recidivism. The Department is in the process of working with the Department of Justice to determine the analysis of any adult offenses that may have occurred with the smaller sample of older juveniles. Results will be provided when available.

FY 04-05 n = 24,578 FY 05-06 n = 23,078

44

Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures: Performance Measure (b): Reduced Subsequent Convictions (Adjudications) The reduction of subsequent convictions (adjudications) is another important outcome for JCPC programs. This outcome reflects not only an impact on public safety, but also reflects the prevention of juveniles from becoming more deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. For the sake of clarity, the term “adjudication”6 is the Juvenile Code’s logical equivalent to the concept of an adult “conviction.” To ensure that reductions in subsequent delinquent adjudications were not due to the “aging-out” of the sample from the juvenile system, this analysis examined juveniles who were 15 and half years of age or younger at the time of program completion with a six month follow-up. This sample represented about 65 percent of JCPC terminations for these years. The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure Five.

Figure Five: Reduced Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs

For FY 2004-2005, there were 4,075 total adjudicated delinquent complaints six months prior to program completion date. There were 2,133 total adjudicated delinquent complaints six months at or following program completion date. This constitutes a 47.6 percent reduction in subsequent adjudicated delinquent complaints. For FY 2005-2006, there were 3,722 total adjudicated

6 “Adjudication” is described by North Carolina General Statute § 7B-2411. Adjudication: “If the court

finds that the allegations in the petition have been proved as provided in G.S. 7B-2409, the court shall so state. If the court finds that the allegations have not been proved, the court shall dismiss the petition with prejudice and the juvenile shall be released from secure or nonsecure custody if the juvenile is in custody.”

Reduction of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs

4075

3722

2133 2146

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

FY 04-'05 FY 05-'06

Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints Six Months Prior to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lowerCount of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints Six Months at or Subsequent to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower

FY 04-05 n = 24,578 FY 05-06 n = 23,078

Number

of Delinquent Complaints Adjudicated

45

delinquent complaints six months prior to program completion date. There were 2,146 total adjudicated delinquent complaints six months at or following program completion date. This constitutes a 42.3 percent reduction in subsequent adjudicated delinquent complaints. Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures: Performance Measure (c): Reduced Violation of Terms of Community Supervision As a performance outcome, JCPC programming should provide juveniles and their families with the types of services that can improve adjustment while under supervision by juvenile court counselors. Client Tracking data provides a measure of court progress that includes whether violations of supervision occurred.7 The results of the analysis are depicted in Figure Six.

Reduction in Violations of Community Supervision

4.4% 3.7%2.5%

55.2%

34.1%

4.2% 4.0%2.5%

55.4%

33.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Motion for Violation ofCourt Order (Community

Supervision)

New DelinquencyPetition(s)

New UndisciplinedPetition(s)

No New Problems No Problems at Referralor Since

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ter

min

ated

Cas

es

FY 04-'05 FY 05-'06

Figure Six: Reduced Violations of Community Supervision for JCPC Programs For FY 2004-2005, only 4 percent of cases had Motion for violation of court order compared to 55 percent that had No New problems. Note 34 percent had No problems at referral or since. For FY 2005-2006, only 4 percent of cases had Motion for violation of court order compared to 55 percent that had No New problems. Note 33.9 percent had No problems at referral or since.

7 Data current as of October 2007. There may be slight differences from previously published numbers which is attributable to data additions and edits provided by program providers on a routine and on-going basis.

FY 04-05 n = 21,830 FY 05-06 n = 20,768

46

Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures: Performance Measure (d): Fulfilled Restitutions to Victims The fulfillment of restitution to victims is an important element of the juvenile justice system that seeks to insure offender accountability and provide restorative justice for victims. Restitution is also a statutorily prescribed dispositional alternative that should be utilized by the Juvenile Court in the supervision of juvenile offenders.8 JCPC programming is essential in providing services to meet this need. Client Tracking identifies programs that provide this service to the Court. Successful completion9 of such programs would indicate a high level of fulfillment for restitution for victims10. The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure Seven.

Fufillment of Restitution by JCPC Programs

4.4%1.1% 2.3% 3.3%

0.2% 0.2%

5.5%

80.3%

2.7%0.0%

2.3% 1.4% 2.9% 2.9%0.0% 0.2%

7.1%

78.9%

4.3%0.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Did no

t part

icipa

te

Family

reloc

ated

Other

Remov

ed by

court

actio

n

Remov

ed by

paren

ts

Runaw

ay

Satisfa

ctory

comple

tion

Succe

ssful

comple

tion

Unsuc

cess

ful C

omple

tion

Unkno

wn

FY 04-'05 FY 05-'06

Figure Seven: Fulfilled Restitution to Victims in JCPC Programs

For FY 2004-2005, there were 6,051 terminations from restitution programs, where over 80 percent of cases completed the program successfully, which indicates evidence of a high level of compensation to victims. For FY 2005-2006, there were 5,645 terminations from restitution

8 See North Carolina General Statute § 7B-2506 9 For termination reasons in the JCPC database, “Successful Completion” indicates a high level of client participation in program activities and achievement of behavior improvement goals. 10 Data current as of October 2007. There may be slight differences from previously published numbers which is attributable to data additions and edits provided by program providers on a routine and on-going basis.

FY 04-05 n = 6051 FY 05-06 n = 5646

47

programs where 78.9 percent of cases completed the program successfully, which indicates evidence of a high level of compensation to victims. Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures: Performance Measure (e): Increased Parental Accountability The involvement of parents in JCPC programming is crucial to increasing the accountability of parents regarding the needs of their children. JCPC programming seeks to engage parents in the provision of services to insure success. Many parents actively participate or engage from the outset and are eager for their children and family to benefit from JCPC programs. Client Tracking records the level of parental involvement during the program process as an outcome measure.11 This measure is the closest measure available to assess parental “accountability.” Fiscal Research Division has accepted this as a shadow measure in annual reports that have been submitted to the General Assembly. The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure Eight.

Parental Accountability (Involvement) in JCPC Programming

73%

16%

11%

72%

18%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Improved or Nonproblematic Decreased or Unchanged Unknown

FY 04-05 FY05-'06

Figure Eight: Parental Accountability (Involvement) in JCPC Programming In FY 2004-2005, there were 21,810 cases that were terminated that reported this outcome measure, out of which 73 percent reported that parental accountability (involvement) had either improved or was non-problematic. In FY 2005-2006, there were 20,768 cases that were terminated that reported this outcome measure, out of which 72 percent reported that parental accountability (involvement) had either improved or was non-problematic

11 Data current as of October 2007. There may be slight differences from previously published numbers which is attributable to data additions and edits provided by program providers on a routine and on-going basis.

FY 04-05 n = 21,810 FY 05-06 n = 20,768

48

Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These Measures: Performance Measure (f): Reduced the Use of Alcohol and Substance Abuse This performance measure is not very meaningful as only a small number (n=9) of JCPC programs identify alcohol and drug treatment as their primary intervention. Substance abuse treatment is typically provided through the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services. In particular, North Carolina's substance abuse initiative Managing Access for Juvenile Offender Resources and Services (MAJORS), a joint effort of the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services (DMH/DD/SAS) and the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP), offers specialized substance abuse community treatment, transitional care and coordination services in 31 judicial districts and 61 counties.12 Additionally, urinalysis, as a screening tool, is routinely used by juvenile court counselors as well as detention and Youth Development Center staff. Since funding of JCPC programs seeks to avoid duplication of services and provide the greatest leverage of public monies, substance abuse programming is seldom funded. Although many JCPC programs may provide basic substance abuse education as a supplemental service, the number of programs actually providing treatment is limited. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has remained committed to addressing the issue of substance abuse among at-risk and court-involved juveniles by its on-going partnerships apart from JCPC programs. Summative Evaluation: Analyzing JCPCs and Their Program Performance – Measures and Outcomes Based on the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol With the passage of the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North Carolina became the second state to mandate that only evidenced-based services for juvenile offenders would be eligible for state funding. The Act required the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to ensure that only effective programs receive State funds as well as conduct an evaluation of programs funded through the State’s Juvenile Justice Prevention Councils (JCPCs). To help meet this mandate, the Department contracted with Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell and Dr. Mark W. Lipsey and his staff at Vanderbilt University’s Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology to develop a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of JCPC funded delinquency prevention programs. Individualized program evaluations and model programs were considered as approaches but not selected because of expense and the inability to replicate in real world settings. The Department, therefore, worked with Howell and Lipsey on an approach termed the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP)13. This innovative evaluation approach involves extracting program principles or guidelines for effective interventions from evaluation research and applying them to program practice. This strategy, termed meta-analysis, does not require that each program replicate all aspects of an effective brand name “model” program with consistent high fidelity or that regular program outcome evaluations be undertaken to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the individual program. The key assumption of this approach is that incorporation of a suitable selection of those features into the practice of routine programs

12 http://www.ncmajors.org/ 13 See Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., & Tidd, S. T. (July 2007). The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP): A Practical Approach to Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice Programs in North Carolina, Final Evaluation Report. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology.

49

will ensure effectiveness. In practice, this approach is designed to effectively provide program development as well as formative and summative evaluation information to be used with other data sources in making informed decisions about programs for at-risk and adjudicated youth. How the Tool Works Over the past several decades, a great deal of research has accumulated on the effectiveness of juvenile delinquency interventions. However, this information is spread across a wide number of books, articles, and research reports. Lipsey has been a pioneer in using a research technique called meta-analysis which allows this diverse data to be combined and analyzed quantitatively. While there is still much to be learned about how to effectively address juvenile delinquency, meta-analysis allows us to summarizes what we currently know and use it to evaluate and improve existing programs. The SPEP organizes this information into estimates of the relative effectiveness of ten broad types of juvenile justice programs for prevention and court supervised youth. The SPEP itemizes the characteristics of effective programs and assigns points to specific program characteristics according to their relationship to recidivism outcomes in the available research (Howell & Lipsey, 2004a, 2004b). Different ratings and point allocations are defined for different programs, classified and scored according to the primary and supplemental services they provide, the amount of service provided (measured in terms of frequency, duration, and proportion of clients that receive them), and the characteristics of the clients that receive specific services.” Individual programs receive a SPEP Score that is based on both the type of program as well as how well it matches the optimal mix of characteristics described above. The SPEP provides general information on the expected effectiveness of a specific program as well as important information on ways in which a program could be made more effective. Figure Nine provides a conceptual illustration of the approach.14 Important to note is that the needs of the youth served by a JCPC, as well as resource constraints, and the mix of services currently available in the community are important factors that impact the selection of specific program types, not just the maximum potential SPEP score. Additionally, not all programs can be rated by the SPEP methodology. There are some program types for which too little data is available with which to currently develop a SPEP. JCPCs fund a number of important services that, while not having a specific therapeutic function, none the less serve important roles (i.e., psychological assessment and emergency shelter care). These services do not have SPEP scores. Data from the first full year of operation of the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol system (FY 2006-2007) will be shared with Fiscal Research staff prior to the start of the legislative session. 14 See also Howell, J. C. & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). A practical approach to evaluating and improving juvenile justice programs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 55(1), 35-48

50

Figure Nine: Program Improvement

As described earlier, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention selected SPEP as a mechanism for evaluation because other options were not doable given limited capacity and the real world settings of programs. The Department’s work with SPEP has highlighted its value in program development and therefore has perhaps more future application in formative evaluations than summative ones unless further resources become available to develop mechanisms for determining SPEP ratings for those JCPC component services for which no SPEP ratings instruments have been developed. SPEP rating instruments have been developed only for those services for which a sufficient research base exists. Additional resources will be needed to move this evaluation system into a more complete response to the range of programs included in JCPC funded grants. Summary and Conclusion Section two of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review offers information about “meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.” The section begins by offering a logic model to frame the JCPC approach and includes information that reflects both formative and summative evaluations of program performance and the meeting of measures related to program performance. The evidence of JCPC program success ranges from actions that are taken, including the defunding of JCPC

51

programs when programs do not operate as they should, to the successful achievement of targeted program objectives and legislatively identified objectives. It also offers information about SPEP, the Department’s effort to evaluate JCPC programs using research and evidence-based practices. The information offered in this section specifically shows that, working collaboratively, Department staff and local JCPCs have monitored JCPC program performance by carrying out systematic interventions in response to varying levels of program effectiveness. These interventions range from providing additional training and technical assistance to increased intensity of program monitoring and evaluation, to JCPCs making decisions to discontinue program funding in cases in which service providers were either unwilling or incapable to respond to provisions in Corrective Action Plans. Further, this section shows a consistent pattern of JCPC funded programs in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 that demonstrated a high level of attainment of individual program measurable objectives in four areas matched to local risk and needs of at-risk and court involved youth in counties throughout the State. In addition, the data presented also documents significant longitudinal progress (FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006) by local JCPC programs using six meaningful outcome measures required by statute to demonstrate program effectiveness. Finally, the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol was described as a tool used by Department staff and local JCPCs to enhance program development and program effectiveness evaluation and to efficiently meet the statutory requirement that JCPCs “fund evidence-based programs only.” Overall, this section of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s continuation review offers evidence of significant accomplishments in demonstrating program effectiveness by JCPC programs. Youth are learning skills, changing behaviors, and changing life styles. Victims are being compensated, and public safety is being enhanced. Cost savings related to reduced recidivism can be projected from what is offered. All of this is especially notable given that there has been essentially flat funding for JCPCs from 1999-2007. This lack of funding has extended to the Department, deterring its ability to improve its databases, program monitoring, and technical assistance offerings and to further implement the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol as a formative as well as summative evaluation tool for JCPC funded programs.

52

Appendix A: Methodology for the Measurement of Performance Outcomes.

Performance Measure #1: REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS In order to determine a percentage reduction, a baseline must first be established against which to measure results. The comparison baseline should be for an equal period of elapsed time so that differences are not attributable to differences in length of time measured. The sample group was chosen from program participants that were 15 and a half or younger at the time of program completion with six month follow-up from the time of program completion to determine any subsequent post-program offending. This sample was selected with a six month follow-up so that any reduction in subsequent complaints would not be attributable to attrition into the adult system. For this baseline, the total number of delinquent complaints per program participant for six months prior to program completion date by program type was calculated. For subsequent complaints, the total number of delinquent complaints per program participant for six months following or at program completion date by program type was calculated. Note that this approach measures the outcome for each program. Hence, in both previous and subsequent measures of juvenile offending, the complaints that occurred before and/or after the program completion date are the unit of measurement. The same juvenile may be in more than one program and have their same complaint history compared to more than one program completion date Reduction of complaints looks at percentage change from a baseline, which is not the same as a simple measure of recidivism where the percentage of participants with new charges is measured. In instances where there are small samples and an increase in subsequent complaints is measured, it is not advisable to conclude that this is always a measure of poor program performance due to a limited sample. In such cases, it would be preferable to simply look at the number of program participants versus a count of juveniles with complaints. For data sources, we extracted JCPC program terminations that occurred in the following Fiscal Years: FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. Each Fiscal Year of program terminations was placed into its own data table to capture individuals who completed JCPC programs. For complaint data, all complaints entered into NCJOIN with an offense date for two calendars years into which each Fiscal Year of JCPC program completions could be measured were extracted15. For example, Fiscal Year 05-06 data for JCPC program completions was measured against complaints entered into NC-JOIN with an offense date that ranged from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006. This would provide a minimum of six months for an offense to occur before or after the JCPC program termination date.

15 JCPC termination data was extracted from the research server in October 2007. Data additions and edits are submitted by program providers on a routine and on-going basis. Hence data extracted or reported at different times may reflect differences attributable to this process.

53

The JCPC data was matched into the NC-JOIN data where First name, Last name and Date of Birth were equal. This level of exact matching lessened the possibility of false matches. While there are certainly instances where matching would not occur due to spelling or other confounding circumstance, the sample size was large enough to have confidence in the results and it appears unlikely that there were any systemic matching issues that would lessen confidence in results. The matching process and logic used to derive the data for both prior complaints and subsequent complaints is depicted below for the FY 05-06 sample. The same process was used for FY 04-05 sample.

54

Performance Measure #2 REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS (ADJUDICATIONS) The same process was used as measures for subsequent complaints in Performance Measure # 1. However results were limited to only those complaints that had been adjudicated (convicted), disposed (sentenced) or transferred to adult court as coded in the offense status ID in the NC-JOIN tables. Note that adjudication is the functional equivalent of “conviction” when referring to the juvenile court process. “Adjudication” is described by G.S. § 7B-2411: “If the court finds that the allegations in the petition have been proved as provided in G.S. 7B-2409, the court shall so state. If the court finds that the allegations have not been proved, the court shall dismiss the petition with prejudice and the juvenile shall be released from secure or nonsecure custody if the juvenile is in custody.” Performance Measure # 3 REDUCE VIOLATIONS OF TERMS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION This analysis used Court Progress Measure from Client Tracking System. This outcome measure is coded in the Client Tracking System following the termination of a case from a program. The coding choices for this outcome measure are as follows:

• No problems at referral or since, • No new problems, • Motion for violation of court order,

55

• New undisciplined petition(s), • New delinquency petition(s).

Cases that are coded as having “No new problems” indicate the existence of previous court activity. The percentage of terminated cases with “Motions for Violations of Court Order” is compared to the percentage of terminated cases with “No new problems.” Performance Measure # 4 FUFILL RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS For this analysis, data from the Client Tracking System was used to examine the termination reason for cases completing JCPC programs designated as restitution programs. Successful completion of the program was selected as the unit of measure since this reporting requirement seeks to measure the fulfillment of this obligation. For termination reasons in the Client Tracking System database16,

“Successful Completion” indicates a high level of client participation in program activities and achievement of behavior improvement goals.”

This analysis reports the percentage of cases successfully completing restitution programs. Program Performance Measure # 5 INCREASE PARENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY The Client Tracking System records Parental Involvement as an outcome measure for terminated cases. The coding choices for this measure are as follows:

• No problems at referral or since, • Significant improvement, • Some improvement, • Unchanged, • Decreased, • Unknown

Analysis was made of this measure on terminated cases reporting results for this outcome. For ease of interpretation, coding items were collapsed into three measures:

1. “Improved or Nonproblematic” combined the results of the following Client Tracking Codes: No problems at referral or since, Significant improvement, Some improvement.

2. “Decreased or Unchanged” combined the results of the following Client Tracking Codes: Unchanged, Decreased.

3. “Unknown” remained as coded in Client Tracking

Full results by Client Tracking Code and Program Component are reported in Appendix XX Program Performance Data Outcome Tables.

16 See http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/resources/jcpc/resources/instructions_clientrackingform.pdf

56

Appendix B: Program Performance Data Outcome Tables17 Performance Measure #1: REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS

DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FOR FY 04-'05 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND COMPONENT TYPE

Program Component Type

Count of Delinquent

Complaints Six Months Prior to

Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower

Count of Delinquent Complaints Six

Months at or Subsequent to

Program Termination for Juveniles Age

15.6 or lower % Change ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS Psychological Assessments 1928 591 -69.35

Subtotal 1928 591 -69.35 CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS Counseling 885 584 -34.01 Crisis Counseling 5 4 N Size < 50 Home Based Family Counseling 167 95 -43.11 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 28 1 N Size < 50 Sexual Offender Treatment 2 2 N Size < 50

Subtotal 1087 686 -36.89 COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS Juvenile Structured Day 953 752 -21.09

Subtotal 953 752 -21.09 RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Group Home Care 85 80 -5.88 Runaway Shelter Care 79 108 36.71 Specialized Foster Care 2 4 N Size < 50 Temporary Foster Care 2 2 N Size < 50 Temporary Shelter Care 337 226 -32.94

Subtotal 505 420 -16.83 RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS Mediation/Conflict Resolution 359 166 -53.76 Restitution 3229 1216 -62.34 Teen Court 573 247 -56.89

Subtotal 4161 1629 -60.85 STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS Guided Growth Program 188 154 -18.09 Interpersonal Skill Building 244 160 -34.43 Life Skills Training 10 2 N Size < 50 Mentoring 32 13 N Size < 50 Parent/Family Skill Building 229 95 -58.52

17 JCPC termination data was extracted from the research server in October 2007. Data additions and edits are submitted by program providers on a routine and on-going basis. Hence data extracted or reported at different times may reflect differences attributable to this process.

57

Prevention Services 3 2 N Size < 50 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 108 47 -56.48 Vocational Development 2 1 -50.00

Subtotal 816 474 -41.91 TOTAL 9450 4552 -51.83

DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FOR FY 05-'06 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND COMPONENT TYPE

Program Component Type

Count of Delinquent

Complaints Six Months Prior to

Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower

Count of Delinquent

Complaints Six Months at or

Subsequent to Program

Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6

or lower % Change ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS Psychological Assessments 1637 541 -66.95

Subtotal 1637 541 -66.95 CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS Counseling 822 532 -35.28 Crisis Counseling 29 12 N Size <50 Home Based Family Counseling 209 135 -35.41 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 12 21 N Size <50 Sexual Offender Treatment 6 1 N Size <50

Subtotal 1078 701 -34.97 COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS Juvenile Structured Day 892 576 -35.43

Subtotal 892 576 -35.43 RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Group Home Care 102 46 -54.90 Runaway Shelter Care 49 72 N Size <50 Specialized Foster Care 1 10 N Size <50 Temporary Foster Care 0 14 N Size <50 Temporary Shelter Care 304 249 -18.09

Subtotal 456 391 -14.25 RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS Mediation/Conflict Resolution 460 224 -51.30 Restitution 2989 1386 -53.63 Teen Court 413 207 -49.88

Subtotal 3862 1817 -52.95 STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS Experiential Skill Building 8 1 N Size <50 Guided Growth Program 200 95 -52.50 Interpersonal Skill Building 390 240 -38.46 Mentoring 30 24 N Size <50 Parent/Family Skill Building 240 126 -47.50 Prevention Services 8 21 N Size <50

58

Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 54 52 -3.70 Vocational Development 6 4 N Size <50

Subtotal 936 563 -39.85 TOTAL 8861 4589 -48.21

Performance Measure #2 REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS (ADJUDICATIONS) ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS FOR FY 05-'06 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND COMPONENT TYPE

Program Component Type

Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints Six Months Prior to Program Termination for Juveniles

Age 15.6 or lower

Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints

Six Months at or Subsequent to Program

Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower % Change]

ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS Psychological Assessments 865 272 -68.55

Subtotals 865 272 -68.55 CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS Counseling 372 250 -32.80 Crisis Counseling 12 6 N Size <50 Home Based Family Counseling 96 54 -43.75 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 4 9 N Size <50 Sexual Offender Treatment 5 0 N Size <50

Subtotals 489 319 -34.76 COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS Juvenile Structured Day 393 252 -35.88

Subtotals 393 252 -35.88 RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Group Home Care 52 26 -50.00 Runaway Shelter Care 28 34 N Size <50 Specialized Foster Care 0 4 N Size <50 Temporary Foster Care 0 4 N Size <50 Temporary Shelter Care 152 103 -32.24

Subtotals 232 171 -26.29 RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS Mediation/Conflict Resolution 157 105 -33.12 Restitution 1077 672 -37.60 Teen Court 66 67 1.52

Subtotals 1300 844 -35.08 STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS Experiential Skill Building 5 0 N Size <50 Guided Growth Program 100 46 -54.00 Interpersonal Skill Building 178 131 -26.40 Mentoring 14 9 N Size <50 Parent/Family Skill Building 117 64 -45.30 Prevention Services 4 7 N Size <50

59

Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 20 27 N Size <50 Vocational Development 5 4 N Size <50

Subtotals 443 288 -34.99 TOTAL JCPC PROGRAMS 3722 2146 -42.34

ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FOR FY 04-'05 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND PROGRAM TYPE

Program Component Type

Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints

Six Months Prior to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6

or lower

Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints

Six Months at or Subsequent to Program

Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower % Change]

ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS Psychological Assessments 1055 296 -71.94

Subtotal 1055 296 -71.94 CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS Counseling 411 304 -26.03 Crisis Counseling 3 3 N Size < 50 Home Based Family Counseling 95 50 -47.37 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 12 1 N Size < 50 Sexual Offender Treatment 1 1 N Size < 50

Subtotal 522 359 -31.23 COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS Juvenile Structured Day 479 344 -28.18

Subtotal 479 344 -28.18 RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Group Home Care 48 34 N Size < 50 Runaway Shelter Care 36 47 N Size < 50 Specialized Foster Care 0 2 N Size < 50 Temporary Foster Care 1 1 N Size < 50 Temporary Shelter Care 161 81 -49.69

Subtotal 246 165 -32.93 RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS Mediation/Conflict Resolution 96 70 -27.08 Restitution 1223 587 -52.00 Teen Court 90 107 18.89

Subtotal 1409 764 -45.78 STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS Guided Growth Program 82 68 -17.07 Interpersonal Skill Building 120 63 -47.50 Life Skills Training 1 1 N Size < 50 Mentoring 14 6 N Size < 50 Parent/Family Skill Building 92 52 -43.48 Prevention Services 2 0 N Size < 50 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 51 15 -70.59 Vocational Development 2 0 N Size < 50

60

Subtotal 364 205 -43.68 TOTAL 4075 2133 -47.66

Performance Measure # 3 REDUCE VIOLATIONS OF TERMS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

COURT PROGRESS FY 04-'05

Program Component Type Mot

ion

for

Vio

latio

n of

Cou

rt

Ord

er

New

Del

inqu

ency

Pet

ition

(s)

New

Und

isci

plin

ed P

etiti

on(s

)

No

New

Pro

blem

s

No

Prob

lem

s at R

efer

ral o

r Si

nce

Gra

nd T

otal

Counseling 192 164 132 1841 1021 3350 Crisis Counseling 2 2 1 9 0 14 Group Home Care 27 19 11 84 60 201 Guided Growth Program 37 36 29 360 820 1282 Home Based Family Counseling 58 28 13 258 64 421 Interpersonal Skill Building 54 52 46 495 946 1593 Juvenile Structured Day 106 53 102 988 542 1791 Life Skills Training 1 1 0 8 0 10 Mediation/Conflict Resolution 20 31 26 540 1010 1627 Mentoring 6 2 7 62 201 278 Parent/Family Skill Building 29 23 22 389 200 663 Prevention Services 0 0 0 4 172 176 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 2 0 1 41 0 44 Psychological Assessments 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restitution 330 286 67 4884 487 6054 Runaway Shelter Care 4 3 17 131 234 389 Sexual Offender Treatment 4 2 0 30 7 43 Specialized Foster Care 6 3 10 14 1 34 Teen Court 27 75 20 1323 1080 2525 Temporary Foster Care 0 0 0 14 1 15 Temporary Shelter Care 42 32 21 446 245 786 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 10 3 19 128 363 523 Vocational Development 0 0 0 11 0 11 Grand Total 957 815 544 12060 7454 21830 Percentages 4% 4% 2% 55% 34% 100%*

*percentages are rounded

COURT PROGRESS FY 05-'06

61

Program Component Type Mot

ion

for

Vio

latio

n of

Cou

rt

Ord

er

New

Del

inqu

ency

Pet

ition

(s)

New

Und

isci

plin

ed P

etiti

on(s

)

No

New

Pro

blem

s

No

Prob

lem

s at R

efer

ral o

r Si

nce

Gra

nd T

otal

Counseling 201 139 141 1668 1113 3262 Crisis Counseling 5 3 0 23 3 34 Experiential Skill Building 0 0 0 1 14 15 Group Home Care 22 12 12 88 45 179 Guided Growth Program 47 49 26 284 524 930 Home Based Family Counseling 55 62 23 237 78 455 Interpersonal Skill Building 52 73 44 736 782 1687 Juvenile Structured Day 60 58 107 832 547 1604 Mediation/Conflict Resolution 9 24 25 614 918 1590 Mentoring 6 2 2 57 323 390 Parent/Family Skill Building 33 21 19 477 174 724 Prevention Services 0 4 3 11 239 257 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 2 5 4 43 0 54 Psychological Assessments 0 5 0 0 0 5 Restitution 295 285 61 4548 456 5645 Runaway Shelter Care 6 4 8 111 190 319 Sexual Offender Treatment 6 1 0 37 7 51 Specialized Foster Care 13 4 1 16 1 35 Teen Court 25 47 21 1250 1082 2425 Temporary Foster Care 0 1 0 3 2 6 Temporary Shelter Care 20 24 7 384 176 611 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 15 8 13 59 372 467 Vocational Development 0 0 0 23 0 23 Grand Total 872 831 517 11502 7046 20768 Percentages 4% 4% 2% 55% 34% 100%*

*percentages are rounded Performance Measure # 4

62

FUFILL RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS

Restitution Program Outcome Res

ults

FY

04-

'05

Perc

enta

ge

Res

ults

FY

05-

'06

Perc

enta

ge

Did not participate 269 4.45% 132 2.34% Family relocated 66 1.09% 81 1.43% Other 142 2.35% 164 2.91% Removed by court action 199 3.29% 163 2.89% Removed by parents 10 0.17% 1 0.02% Runaway 13 0.21% 9 0.16% Satisfactory completion 332 5.49% 398 7.05% Successful completion 4858 80.28% 4453 78.88% Unsuccessful Completion 162 2.68% 243 4.30% Unknown 0 0.00% 1 0.02% Total 6051 100.00% 5645 100.00%

Program Performance Measure # 5 INCREASE PARENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY Parental Accountability (Involvement) FY 04-05

Program Component Type Dec

reas

ed

No

prob

lem

s at r

efer

ral o

r si

nce

Sign

ifica

nt im

prov

emen

t

Som

e im

prov

emen

t

Unc

hang

ed

Unk

now

n

Gra

nd T

otal

Counseling 30 777 403 911 828 383 3332 Crisis Counseling 0 0 5 5 4 0 14 Group Home Care 5 19 32 59 80 6 201 Guided Growth Program 8 682 54 198 217 132 1291 Home Based Family Counseling 6 29 123 162 97 4 421 Interpersonal Skill Building 10 885 94 247 168 191 1595 Juvenile Structured Day 30 553 89 441 391 287 1791 Mediation/Conflict Resolution 51 1019 95 166 150 146 1627 Mentoring 0 77 13 73 97 18 278 Parent/Family Skill Building 9 122 117 270 109 36 663 Prevention Services 3 134 0 1 0 38 176 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 1 0 5 24 14 0 44 Psychological Assessments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

63

Restitution 77 3476 272 893 585 748 6051 Runaway Shelter Care 10 4 10 186 178 1 389 Sexual Offender Treatment 0 13 5 15 10 0 43 Specialized Foster Care 0 1 15 13 5 0 34 Teen Court 13 1651 287 259 194 121 2525 Temporary Foster Care 0 0 0 10 4 1 15 Temporary Shelter Care 7 224 54 220 265 16 786 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 1 441 12 40 17 12 523 Vocational Development 0 3 0 0 4 4 11 Grand Total 261 10110 1685 4193 3417 2144 21810 Percentages 0% 46% 8% 19% 16% 10% 100.0%*

*percentages are rounded

Parental Accountability (Involvement) FY 05-06

Program Component Type Dec

reas

ed

No

prob

lem

s at r

efer

ral o

r si

nce

Sign

ifica

nt im

prov

emen

t

Som

e im

prov

emen

t

Unc

hang

ed

Unk

now

n

Gra

nd T

otal

Counseling 38 735 475 756 863 395 3262 Crisis Counseling 1 11 2 10 5 5 34 Experiential Skill Building 1 14 0 0 0 0 15 Group Home Care 4 32 35 45 61 2 179 Guided Growth Program 14 391 76 121 125 203 930 Home Based Family Counseling 10 44 131 178 83 9 455 Interpersonal Skill Building 17 810 119 237 199 305 1687 Juvenile Structured Day 40 575 77 322 348 242 1604 Mediation/Conflict Resolution 48 1135 119 111 102 75 1590 Mentoring 5 207 3 25 29 121 390 Parent/Family Skill Building 6 116 177 254 149 22 724 Prevention Services 0 187 0 3 14 53 257 Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling 2 0 5 17 30 0 54 Psychological Assessments 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 Restitution 53 3571 279 642 528 572 5645 Runaway Shelter Care 5 20 8 146 140 0 319 Sexual Offender Treatment 0 10 4 17 19 1 51 Specialized Foster Care 1 0 5 13 16 0 35 Teen Court 11 1585 176 279 193 181 2425 Temporary Foster Care 0 4 0 1 1 0 6 Temporary Shelter Care 6 169 41 163 219 13 611 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 2 358 15 38 39 15 467 Vocational Development 0 15 0 1 2 5 23

64

Grand Total 264 9989 1747 3379 3170 2219 20768 Percentages 1% 48% 8% 16% 15% 11% 100% *percentages are rounded

Program Performance Measure # 6 REDUCE THE USE OF ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE This performance measure would not be very meaningful as only a small number of JCPC programs identify alcohol and drug treatment as their primary intervention (n=9). Substance abuse treatment is typically provided through the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services. In particular, the North Carolina's substance abuse initiative Managing Access for Juvenile Offender Resources and Services (MAJORS), a joint effort of the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services (DMH/DD/SAS) and the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP), offers specialized substance abuse community treatment, transitional care and coordination services in 31 judicial districts and 61 counties.18 In addition to this, substance abuse services are sometimes obtained by other private providers and medical providers. Additionally, urinalysis as a screening tool is routinely used by juvenile court counselors as well as detention and Youth Development Center staff. Since funding of JCPC programs seeks to avoid duplication of services and provide the greatest leverage of public monies, substance abuse programming is seldom funded. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) has remained committed to addressing the issue of substance abuse among at-risk and court-involved juveniles by its on-going partnerships apart from Juvenile Crime Prevention Programs. Nationally, we know from a recent June 2007 special report on teens, drugs, and violence by the Office of National Drug Control Policy that: “(1) teens who use drugs are more likely to engage in violent behavior, steal, abuse other drugs, and join gangs; (2) early use of marijuana is a warning sign for later gang involvement; (3) teens who participate in gangs are more likely to be involved in violent acts and drug use; (4) structured activities and volunteering help keep teens away from drugs; and (5) parents are the most powerful influence on their kids when it comes to using illicit drugs.”19 According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (National Institutes of Health), a 2006 study found that 41% of 8th graders and 75% of 12th have tried alcohol.20 In North Carolina for Calendar Year 2006, 42% of Youth at Disposition in Juvenile Court had evidence of substance abuse requiring further assessment or treatment21

18 http://www.ncmajors.org/ 19 Source material available in National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstract at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=240686 20 http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/underage_drinking.htm Monitoring the Future Survey Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, & Schulenberg JE. (2006). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2005.* (NIH Publication No. 05-5726). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. 21 2006 Annual Report, North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/resources/pdf_documents/annual_report_2006.pdf

65

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:

JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS: RATIONALE FOR CONTINUING, REDUCING, OR ELIMINATING FUNDING

SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The third section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “the rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.” The Department offers this section in response and will approach it in terms of providing a rationale for continuing and increasing funding rather that “continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.” The starting point for this rationale is prevention and how it plays a role in the juvenile justice system that grew out of reform in 1998. The rationale will also include review of the statute generated from reform which is the basis for the existence of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs). Finally, it will provide data in support of continuing and increasing funding; for the latter, evidence will be presented that indicates that the current level of funding for JCPCs is inadequate and that funding needs to be increased to meet the needs of an increasing juvenile population, to enhance program accountability, and to realize cost savings. The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils: Prevention An excellent explanation of the rationale of prevention as it relates to JCPCs is offered by Dr. James C. Howell, a noted juvenile justice expert who previously worked at the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and is a current resident of North Carolina. Howell offers some research context and then connects it to JCPCs:

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson & Howell, 1993) was developed at the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the early 1990s as a guide for state and local juvenile justice reforms. The Comprehensive Strategy is a two-tiered system for responding proactively to juvenile delinquency (see Figure

66

One). In the first tier, delinquency prevention and early intervention programs are relied on to prevent delinquency and reduce the likelihood of delinquent career development among child delinquents and at risk children. If these efforts fail, then the juvenile justice system, the second tier, must provide graduated sanctions and more intensive and costly services for delinquents and especially those offenders with a high likelihood of becoming serious, violent, and chronic offenders. A continuum of sanctions and services is needed for them that reduce this likelihood while protecting the public.

Figure One

NC’s Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Delinquency

Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending

PreventionTarget Population: At-Risk Youth

Preventing youth from becoming

delinquent by focusing prevention

programs on at-risk youth

Graduated SanctionsTarget Population: Delinquent Youth

Improving the juvenile justice system

response to delinquent offenders

through a system of graduated

sanctions and a continuum of

treatment alternatives

> > > > > >Programs for All Youth

Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk

Immediate Intervention

Intermediate Sanctions

Community Confinement

Training Schools Aftercare

The Comprehensive Strategy framework consists of six levels of program interventions and sanctions, moving from least to most restrictive:

• prevention of delinquency by reducing risk and increasing protection among all

youth; • early intervention with youth at greatest risk, pre-delinquents, and child

delinquents and their families; • immediate intervention for first-time delinquent offenders (misdemeanors and

nonviolent felonies) and non serious repeat offenders; • intermediate sanctions for first-time serious or violent offenders, including

intensive supervision for SVC offenders; • secure corrections (youth development centers in NC) for serious, violent, chronic

offenders; and • aftercare.

67

The General Assembly incorporated the Comprehensive Strategy framework into the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998. State officials, juvenile justice advocacy groups, and legislators saw it as a way to address two policy concerns. First, they wanted to preserve youths' futures by targeting prevention and early intervention programs on youths at high risk of entering the juvenile justice system or further penetrating the system. Second, they wanted to increase public safety by targeting serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders for more restrictive sanctions (i.e., youth development center placement). This first of these two goals is the overall mandate for the prevention component of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Comprehensive Strategy. The JCPCs are charged with developing comprehensive delinquency prevention plans; they also fund and monitor programs, ensuring that a wide variety of services and dispositional options are available. Virtually all county-level prevention programs for high-risk youth and early intervention programs for court-referred delinquents are funded through the JCPCs because of their statutory mandate to target youths at high risk of entering the juvenile justice system or further penetrating the system. Thus, JCPC programs bridge the two Comprehensive Strategy components, in serving youths who have not yet become officially involved in delinquency and also youths who have been adjudicated delinquent (see Figure One). These are two groups with elevated risk of further penetrating the juvenile justice system and perhaps later placement in the State’s secure youth development centers. In fact, the JCPCs are prohibited from funding prevention programs for all youth; that is, primary prevention programs. The Department has developed a Strategic Planning Tool that JCPCs use to map the flow of juveniles within each county’s juvenile justice system. It is divided into sections that correspond to the dispositional levels in the juvenile justice system (e.g., juveniles at intake, diversion plans, approved for court, adjudicated, YDC commitments). Electronic client tracking data for prevention clients and NC-JOIN tracking data for court-referred youth show offenders’ level of system penetration. The Strategic Planning Tool also enables the JCPCs to determine the number of youths that need services in each of the levels in the system. Recidivism data, dispositions, and placement information then informs the Department of its success in meeting the statutory mandate. In sum, the JCPC programs in North Carolina play a critical role in the overall functioning of the State’s juvenile justice system. These programs serve to keep youths out of the system by providing services to children who are at elevated risk of delinquent behavior, or minor delinquency involvement, and possibly becoming future clients of the State’s youth development centers. Without this prevention component, the State would have more offenders on formal probation and also committed to the youth development centers.

Howell’s commentary provides a rationale for continuing JCPC funding given its critical role in the larger juvenile justice system. He not only explains well the framework in which prevention

68

and therefore the work of JCPCs lie, he also asserts that the absence of this funding will lead to more youth penetrating the court system and youth development centers and, as a result, incurring the costs associated with such. His comments are not only about prevention but about the investment that JCPC funding represents. The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils: Juvenile Justice Reform and Statute Juvenile justice reform in 1998 generated two state statutes, G.S. 143B-543 and G.S. 143B-550, which provide the foundations for the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and JCPCs and clearly state the intent of the General Assembly to provide JCPCs to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent and to provide a system of funding for the JCPCs that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their communities. Together, these two statutes provide a clear foundation for a continuum of prevention and intervention programs and services in counties statewide that operate to maintain public safety and to address the various needs of at-risk youth. In administering this state-local partnership, each county JCPC must be provided with an adequate funding base that allows that continuum of programs and services to operate effectively in addressing youth needs and in addressing public safety issues. G.S. 143B-550 indicates that “the legislative intent of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council is to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent.” These prevention efforts by the Department are to be implemented, according to the General Statute, by:

• providing community-based alternatives to youth development centers; • providing community-based delinquency and substance abuse prevention strategies and

programs; • providing non-institutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and

the juveniles; • planning and organizing programs and services at the community level and by

developing those programs in partnership with the State (see Program Description section of this report);

• Planning efforts which include representation from particular positions of leadership within the local county and from its citizenry.

G.S. 143B-550 provides the legal foundation for the funding of the JCPCs in each of the State’s 100 counties. This law further articulates that the formula that shall be developed for JCPC funding ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their communities. The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils: JCPC Program Data Each year the General Assembly requires the JCPC Annual Performance Report to respond to six statute-based outcomes to assist in determining the level of effectiveness of JCPC funded programs and services. Data presented in response to section two of the JCPC Continuation

69

Review provision presents convincing evidence of the effectiveness of JCPC programs and services that statewide are:

• reducing subsequent court complaints, • reducing violations of terms of community supervision, • reducing convictions for subsequent offenses, • fulfilling restitution to victims, • increasing parental accountability and involvement, and. • reducing the use of alcohol and controlled substances.

In addition, Figure Two summarizes the number of JCPC programs that met or exceeded their measurable program objectives in FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. Ranging from a low of 63 percent to a high of 100 percent, the data evidence program effectiveness with reference to meeting objectives and therefore stand as part of the rationale for continued funding. Figure Two: Local JCPC Program Grantee Percent of Measurable Objectives Met FY 04-05 and FY 05-06 FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 N =463

FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 N = 495

JCPC PROGRAM AGREEMENT OBJECTIVE Number

Program Agreements

with Objective

Number Met or Exceed

Objective

% Meeting or

Exceeding Program

Objectives

Number Program

Agreements with Objective

Number Met or Exceed Objective

% Meeting or

Exceeding Program

Objectives SCHOOL OBJECTIVES:

IMPROVE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

134 112 84%

159 141 89%

SUSPENDED 82 68 83% 113 101 89% IMPROVE ACADEMICS 115 93 81% 122 99 81% TUTORING 2 2 100% 6 6 100% IMPROVE SCHOOL BEHAVIOR

158 137 87%

179 156 87%

PUBLIC SAFETY OBJECTIVES:

REDUCE OFFENDING 342 298 87% 371 330 89% REDUCE OFFENDING FOR SPECIFIC OFFENSE 48 40 83%

53 47 89%

VICTIM NEEDS 23 18 78% 19 12 63% RESTITUTION 29 24 83% 51 39 76% COMMUNITY SERVICE 37 29 78% 46 36 78% COMPLETE SANCTIONS 85 61 72% 63 52 83%

FAMILY/PEER RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES: RETURN HOME 30 25 83% 27 22 81% PARENT RELATIONSHIPS 91 71 78% 120 100 83% PEER RELATIONSHIPS 38 33 87% 57 46 81%

SKILL DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES: ANGER MANAGEMENT SKILLS

26 21 81%

40 32 80%

COMMUNICATION SKILLS 50 41 82% 77 65 84% JOB SKILLS 18 12 67% 24 20 83% PROVIDE COUNSELING 59 48 81% 57 48 84%

70

Other program data that add to rationale for continued funding involve the Department’s monitoring and evaluating that is carried out to determine program funding continuation. To further ensure that programs and services provided in local communities with JCPC funds are effective, the local JCPC conducts periodic monitoring of each JCPC program during each fiscal year, and Department area consultants also conduct monitoring and evaluation visits with each JCPC program. These monitoring and evaluation strategies are designed to determine the extent to which each JCPC funded program or service is meeting its specified program objectives and to determine appropriate actions/strategies when a program is not achieving satisfactory progress in its program operation. These actions and strategies may range from provision of technical assistance to the program by Department staff, to further training and staff development, to action plans for improvement, to a decision to discontinue funding of the program or service. For example, in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, local JCPCs and Department staff working together determined that 103 JCPC programs did not merit further funding for a variety of reasons. Figure Three indicates that two major factors influenced local JCPCs in making decisions not to continue funding of JCPC grantees: in FY 2004-2005, 44 percent of those program grants whose funding was not continued were due to either lack of effectiveness in meeting program objectives or services not meeting JCPC policy requirements (including poor program management). Similarly, in FY 2005-2006, 34 percent of those program grants whose funding was not continued were for either lack of program effectiveness or services not meeting JCPC policy requirements (including poor program management). Duplication of services, community needs better served by another program, and program dissolved or did not reapply were other factors in JCPC decisions regarding funding continuation decisions.

Figure Three: Factors Impacting JCPC Funded Grant Program Continuation Decisions

n = 71

Factors Impacting Funding Continuation Decisions Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005

4%

13%

1%

27%11%

38%

6% Lack of effectiveness Duplication of services

Services did not meet JCPCtarget population Services no longer needed

Communities needs betterserved by another programPoor management

Other

71

n =56 The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils: Population Growth, Funding Lag, Service Needs, Program Accountability, and Cost Savings Beyond the prevention framework and evidence in the data offered, the rationale for continued and increased funding for JCPCs stems from need related to population growth, funding lag, service need, program accountability, and cost savings. During the period 1998-2007, the number of youth ages 10-17 in North Carolina increased 19 percent from 813,854 to 968,150. In contrast, during this same time period, funding for JCPCs rose only 3.2 percent from $21,724,625 to $22,652,860 (including $488,660 taken from previous funding for JCPCs and transferred to Teen Court operation in 18 counties). With the additional expenses related to Teen Court during this time interval and concomitant reductions in funding of other local JCPCs to fund the Teen Court transfer, the net result shows a picture of essentially flat funding for JCPCs over 1999-2007. In addition to a significant lag in JCPC funding in relation to juvenile population increases, there are also significant needs for increased funding in local communities based on recent data on underserved youth and insufficient capacity of local grant programs to respond to the need for additional program capacity as evidenced in the Department’s survey of over 500 local JCPC grant service providers. In that survey, over 60 percent of respondents indicated that increasing program capacity to serve additional at-risk and court-involved youth was a major recommendation for program improvement (see Appendix A for survey results). Because recent funding earmarks by the Department for such resources as increased staffing for program monitoring and technical assistance as well as technology to improve the Client Tracking JCPC database have not been attained, Department staff remain limited in their capacity to provide the level of JCPC program accountability in the form of technical assistance, training, and program monitoring and evaluation of JCPC programs throughout the State. At least four additional staff, at an approximate cost of $200,000 are needed, including area consultants to improve JCPC program monitoring and technical assistance. To assure accountability in fiscal management, four additional internal auditors, one for each Department area office, are needed (at an approximate cost of $200,000). Two additional research and management information staff and accompanying improvements in systems hardware and

Factors Impacting Funding Continuation Decisions Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006

4% 8%

11%

8%

11%9%

49%

Lack of effectiveness

Duplication of services

Services did not meet JCPCtarget populationServices no longer needed

Communities needs betterserved by another programPoor management

Other

72

software (approximate cost $200,000) including staff and equipment/software) are needed to improve and expand the Department information management infrastructure. This improved system will allow direct data entry online by local JCPC program providers and online processing of JCPC program proposals. Finally, these additional resources are needed to improve quality assurance and timeliness in data entry into the Department’s Client Tracking and NC- JOIN data bases. Finally, cost savings realized because of investment in prevention rather than juvenile justice system services that are more costly in the courts or in youth development centers offer a rationale that points toward continuing and increasing funding. To illustrate, JCPC programs annually admit over 24,000 at-risk and adjudicated youth, providing them with programs and interventions that allow them to be successfully maintained in the community at an average cost of $933 per youth as opposed to being committed to a youth development center at an annual cost of $95,720 per youth. The savings in this comparison is obvious. For every 1 percent of youth served successfully in JCPC funded community-based programs and kept out of youth development centers, the cost saved in youth development center expenditures alone is approximately equal to the total current JCPC allocation of $22.6 million. Additionally, as a result of the 70 percent reduction in commitments that the State has realized since reform, a strong case can be made that providing increased funding for JCPCs, the “front end” of the Comprehensive Strategy will result in further reductions in restrictive and costly commitment placements of youth. These youth, previously sent to youth development centers, have now been shifted to local communities with virtually no increase in funding. With the shift of youth being served in the communities in addition to significant increases in the 10-17 age range, additional funds need to be provided to the communities in order to continue to provide the appropriate array and intensity of prevention and intervention services to effectively address the increasing needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth in North Carolina. Therefore, a prudent and timely course of action, given the significant reductions in commitments and demonstrated effectiveness of JCPC programs would be to shift funding saved by those reductions in commitments to the prevention and intervention end of the juvenile justice system. This strategy will provide the needed increase in resources for the local JCPCs to continue improving programs and services in their respective communities that, in turn, would result in further reductions in youth development center commitments with an associated cost savings as well as increased successful outcomes for at-risk and adjudicated youth in lesser restrictive and more cost effective community settings. Summary and Conclusion Section three of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review offers a rationale for continued and increased funding that sets forth prevention, statute, data, need, and cost savings as premises. The rationale highlights how JCPC funding is an essential part of the State’s juvenile justice system and that its continuation and, in fact, increase are supported instatute, program outcomes data, need for additional resources, and cost savings strategies. A strong case is made for shifting funding from reduced Youth Development Center commitments to the “front end” of the juvenile justice system to be used for prevention programs that are effective in diverting at-risk youth from crime and enhancing public safety. Evidence is

73

provided that convincingly demonstrates a consistent pattern of JCPC grant services meeting or exceeding their measurable program objectives in such critical areas as school suspension and improved academic achievement, improved school and home behavior, completed restitution to victims, and improved anger management skills and job/employment-related skills. Equally important is data demonstrating that JCPC funded grant programs have effectively achieved program outcomes deemed important to the General Assembly (e.g., reducing subsequent court complaints and violations of court supervision, fulfilling restitution to victims, and increasing parental accountability and involvement). Data are also presented that articulated a systematic decision-making process used by JCPCs resulting in over 100 JCPC funded programs having their funding discontinued by their JCPCs as a result of lack of effectiveness in meeting program objectives and/or poor project management during FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-2006. Finally, a strong case is made for increasing future funding for JCPCs based on increase youth population (including at-risk youth), a lag in funding of JCPCs over the last eight years, and the need for additional resources to further ensure JCPC program accountability and quality.

74

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:

JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS: CONSEQUENCES OF DISCONTINUING PROGRAM FUNDING

SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The fourth section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide information about “the consequences of discontinuing program funding.” Consequences include negative impacts on juveniles, public and school safety, counties, and the State. These negative impacts will be felt statewide should funding not be restored. Prevention services directed at juvenile crime and delinquency will be severely reduced with a likely resulting increase in juvenile crime and delinquency and an associated reduction in public and school safety. Costs will increase with more crime. In order to provide a broad-based assessment of the consequences of discontinuing Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) funding, two large surveys were conducted. First, the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University surveyed the JCPC membership in October, 2007, to ascertain the responses of this critical group on this topic (see Appendix A). Some 946 members of local JCPCs from all 100 counties responded to the structured survey questionnaire. The second large survey, conducted by the Department in October, 2007, surveyed the JCPC program providers in all 100 counties. This survey resulted in responses from 515 of 632 program providers (81% response rate) in all 100 counties (see Appendix B). Data from these large participant-based surveys allows discussion of the impact of discontinuing JCPC funding on: (1) the juveniles served in community programs and services for at-risk and court involved youth; (2) public and school safety; (3) county-level courts, detention centers, JCPC integrity, and economic development; and (4) projected Youth Development Center growth and growth in the number of youth entering the adult criminal system. Consequences for Juveniles Served by DiscontinuingJCPC Grant-Funded Programs G.S. 143B-543 establishes the legislative intent of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils as vehicles to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent and to protect the community and the juveniles. According the Juvenile Recidivism Report-May 2007, of the NC

75

“If we can save one child, the JCPC funding should be continued….I believe in preventive programs and belief in a child” County Commissioner, JCPC Membership Survey, 2007; reflects consequence of discontinued JCPC funding on Juveniles served by JCPC grant funded programs

“Discontinued funding will result in a higher juvenile delinquency rate, more victimization, and more gang activity in general.” Chief of Police, JCPC Membership Survey, 2007; reflects consequences of discontinued JCPC funding on Public and School Safety

Administrative Office of the Courts Sentencing and Policy Commission, “recidivism was lower when the systemic response of the court was less invasive, either by processing and treating youths short of adjudication or, if adjudicated, providing dispositions short of the most restrictive option of confinement” (p.49). Juveniles must be provided with appropriate dispositional alternatives in the community or risk increased likelihood of entry into the juvenile justice system and further likelihood of recidivating once adjudicated without such community programs and services. Without JCPC grant program services, according to 86 percent of Law Enforcement and 91 percent of School Administrator respondents in the JCPC Membership Survey, at-risk and adjudicated youth are significantly more likely to commit more juvenile offenses, become school dropouts, become increasingly truant, and be more likely to get suspended from school. In addition, 81 percent of Mental Health and 85 percent of Social Services Director respondents believe that discontinuing JCPC funding will result in increased gang activity, increased use of inpatient services, increased delay in acquiring psychological assessments, increases in consumer costs for DSS services and an increase in DSS residential placements, and have a negative effect on the juvenile sex offender population. Consequences of Discontinued JCPC Funding on Public and School Safety Two of the most prominent consequences of discontinuing funding for JCPC program grants would be the negative effect on public safety and school safety, as voiced by 94 percent of all 946 JCPC members survey by the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University. In that survey, law enforcement officials, court officials, and citizen member participants voiced broad concern that there would be several major negative consequences of discontinued JCPC on public safety in their communities: a substantial increase in juvenile crime; a severe reduction in community dispositional options for adjudicated youth,; a significant increased gang activity in both the community and in the schools; and loss of prevention interventions for at-risk youth. Law enforcement respondents were in overwhelming agreement that decreased state JCPC funding will also cause increases in requests for secure detention (at the expense of the counties, who will have to pay 50 percent of the $89 per day rate for detaining a youth in a county detention facility). Of Mental Heath Director respondents surveyed, 84 percent agreed that decreased JCPC funding would result in increased street gang activity across the state. Equally important, 89 percent of survey participants strongly agreed or agreed that decreased JCPC funding would have a

76

"Consequences? Increase in delinquency, increased crime, and increased cost to the State and communities." County Manager, JCPC Membership Survey, 2007; reflects consequences of discontinued JCPC funding on Public and School Safety

negative impact on services to victims and 77 percent of respondents voiced their concern that reduced JCPC funding will have a negative impact on treatment of juvenile sex offenders. Similar findings are evident in the Department’s survey of over 500 JCPC program providers with respect to the consequences of discontinued JCPC funding on school safety and related school matters. School Administrator respondents serving as JCPC members voiced their concern that severe consequences would be evident in the following areas of school safety if JCPC funding were discontinued: an increase in truancy rates in the schools; an increase in the rate of school suspensions and a concomitant rise in juvenile crime while they are “on the street” while suspended; an increase in school dropouts; and an increase in gang-related violence in the schools. Out of the total number of JCPC member respondents, 93 percent voiced that discontinuing JCPC funding would have a negative impact on school safety in general. As one county commissioner survey participant said, there will be a “higher rate of dropouts in schools and an increase in juvenile crime.” Another county commissioner cited a significant consequence of discontinued JCPC funding in his county: “Increased dropout rate, with further negative impact on economic development opportunities in the State of North Carolina.” Finally, one school superintendent lamented reduced JCPC funding in her comment: “The school system relies on JCPC services to help with adjudicated youth in intervention for violence and substance abuse. Without this funding, students with serious behavior problems or involved in serious risk behaviors would have no avenue for intervention services in our county.” Consequences of Discontinued JCPC Funding at the County Level Without JCPC funded programs and services, county court services will see an increase of intakes of juveniles into the court system and virtually no community-based dispositional options to refer those juveniles for intervention services to address their needs. This image was echoed consistently by chief court counselors from counties across the state in the JCPC Membership Survey. As a result, county detention centers will experience more admissions and counties will be saddled with 50 percent of the $89/day cost of detaining a youth in a county detention center. Projections of up to five-fold increases in the number of detention center detainees were made recently by court counselors at a Department Forum on the State of Juvenile Justice in North Carolina. Thus, counties could be required to pay thousands of dollars to respond to these increases in detention center admissions. In the JCPC Membership Survey, 52 of 53 County Manager respondents indicated that their county would not be able to pick up the costs of JCPC programs and services or the resultant costs of not having those dispositional options in the community. Another major area of consequences at the county level will be economic impact. If JCPC funding is discontinued, over 1,200 JCPC program provider staff jobs will be lost at a cost of approximately $18 million.

77

"Judges will have fewer options for youth, which will increase the number of youth sentenced to state facilities." County Manager, JCPC Membership Survey, 2007; reflects consequences of discontinued JCPC funding on Public and School Safety

Of equal concern are the consequences of discontinuing JCPC funding on the integrity and confidence in the JCPCs themselves as major suppliers of community-based programs and services for at-risk and adjudicated youth in communities throughout the state. Several conclusions in the JCPC Membership Survey point to the fact that years of building interagency collaboration are at-risk if these funds are reduced significantly or discontinued. The continuation review process has created great uncertainty among key stakeholders in the community: county commissioners; law enforcement; school superintendents; judges and court counselors; as well as the service providers themselves. The possibility of discontinued funding puts this well-developed culture of interagency collaboration, pooling of funds, and the allocation of supplemental funding from community agencies for JCPC service providers at significant risk. And, particularly in rural communities, this climate of uncertainty can affect the level of confidence organizations have in the longevity of these JCPC funded programs and services. Finally, if programs are deemed to be unstable because of funding, referral agencies (such as schools) may refrain from making referrals for fear of program closure. And the obvious results would be that juveniles who need these services will not receive them or receive them sporadically. Consequences of Discontinued JCPC Funding on the State: Youth Development Centers and Juveniles Entering the Adult Correctional System Should JCPC funded programs and services be discontinued, the impact on commitments to the State’s youth development centers will be significant. With such a discontinuation, judges will have virtually no community dispositional alternatives for diverted or adjudicated youth. Not only will the vehicle for preventing juvenile delinquency be severely impaired with discontinued funding, the State will be forced to increase bed capacity in its youth development centers, an action that runs contrary to research on appropriate interventions for the vast majority of youth who are in the juvenile justice system. Counties will no longer have the capacity to match the intensity of intervention to the needs of each youth in their communities. Costs will be incurred as youth are no longer diverted but instead penetrate the juvenile court system. And, for those youth who are committed, the consequences for the State will be the $95,720 cost per youth annually in a youth development center plus the likelihood that more capacity for the deep-end part of the juvenile justice system (i.e., more youth development centers), not just replacing existing capacity as the current project of the State is doing, will need to be required. The obvious consequence with this will be even more expenditures on juvenile justice facilities. Evidence-based best practice strongly suggests that youth successfully maintained in the community are at much lower risk of recidivism and subsequent entry into the Adult Correctional System as pointed out by a recent study, “From Juvenile-to-Adult: Comprehensive Criminal History Study-Phase Two, September 2007” from the NC Administrative Office of the Courts Sentencing and Policy Commission Report on Juvenile Recidivism in North Carolina:

78

“Deeper involvement in the Juvenile Justice System in general, and two systemic factors in particular, being a juvenile recidivist, and having been committed to a training school-similarly raised the probability of adult recidivism net of controls of demographic and other juvenile justice variables.” (p.35).

The economic consequences and cost-effectiveness of successfully maintaining an at-risk or adjudicated juvenile in the community at an average cost of approximately $1,000 annually versus the $95,720 cost annually for housing a juvenile in a youth development center make the decision of continuing funding of JCPC programs and services an obvious one to support. Summary and Conclusion Section four of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report articulates the very real and serious consequences of discontinuing funding of JCPC programs and services in the State. These consequences are clearly evidenced in two recent large-scale surveys: one by the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University involving almost 1,000 JCPC members from all 100 counties, and a second by the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in which over 500 JCPC service providers articulated their concerns regarding any proposed reduction or elimination of JCPC funds for at-risk and adjudicated youth in every county in the State. These consequences of discontinued funding will negatively impact the successful maintenance of at-risk and juvenile court-involved youth receiving prevention and intervention programs and services to address their needs. Eighty-four percent of JCPC service providers will have to cease operation if JCPC funding is discontinued. Law enforcement officials, school administrators, DSS and Health Services directors, and court counselors participating in these two surveys pointed out the negative impact on public and school safety, resultant increases in gang activity, increases in school dropouts and suspensions, and significant increases in court involvement and juvenile commitments to youth development centers if JCPC funding is cut or discontinued. Ninety-eight percent of county managers and commissioners sitting on JCPCs as members indicated that they cannot pick up the costs associated with JCPC programs and services in their counties. Equally important is the fact that the climate of uncertainty created by the continuation review process has put the integrity of the JCPC itself at risk, in terms of threatening years of interagency collaboration and pooling of resources among community agencies and organizations. Finally, the Sentencing Commission’s latest research shows that the deeper youth are placed in the juvenile justice system, the more likely they are to recidivate and enter into the adult correctional system----at a cost to the youth and a cost to the State that can be avoided by reinstating, making recurring, and increasing funding for JCPC prevention and intervention programs to meet the needs of youth at-risk and those involved in juvenile courts in the State.

79

"Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership Survey” A Survey Prepared by the NC Juvenile Justice Institute, North Carolina Central University for The NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Raleigh, North Carolina October 2007 Requests for further information or permission to reprint should be addressed to the Juvenile Justice Institute, Criminal Justice Department – NC Central University 208 Whiting Criminal Justice Bldg. 1801 Fayetteville St. Durham, NC 27707 (919) 503-7091 www.ncjji.org

Appendix A: Part One

80

INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Juvenile Justice Institute was commissioned by the NCDJJDP to conduct a survey of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The Institute was commissioned to design and conduct this survey as a neutral and independent resource. Our report is focused on analyzing and reviewing the survey results with the stated objective of determining the predicted impact of discontinued funding. It was deemed that it would be most beneficial if this information was obtained directly from those charged with overseeing community based juvenile services. The survey was conducted between September and October 2007. The survey items were tested, and refined prior to launch via an internet based survey platform. The survey was closed on October 5th. In order to obtain the maximum number of respondents to participate and to receive unbiased feedback, respondents were allowed to post anonymous responses to the questions. Secondly, it was made clear that that survey collection was being handled by an independent entity and not from the vendor - DJJDP SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS In total, 946 responses were received from council members from across the state. The excellent response rate of approximately 50% to the survey indicated that users were eager to provide their feedback. Responses were received from all 100 counties. There was roughly equal representation from rural and urban counties. The survey was designed to give a multiple perspectives of the issue. The survey was divided into two sections. The first section was designed to obtain a global measure of the impact of discontinued funding across four dimensions: School Safety, Public Safety, Services to Victims, and Services to Families and Children. For each of these criteria, respondents were asked to indicate whether discontinued funding would impact service provision. Overwhelmingly, respondents agreed that “Decreased State JCPC Funding” would negatively impact each of these areas.

Services to Families and Children: 98.0% Agreement Services to Victims: 88.5% Agreement Public Safety: 94.4% Agreement School Safety: 93.1% Agreement

81

82

The second section solicited responses from council members representing targeted community or government agencies. We asked very specific questions to agency representatives to determine the impact of discontinued funding to their overall functioning (see Appendix 1 for actual survey graphs).

Law enforcement personnel represented by sheriffs, school resource officers, and police chiefs were asked to assess the impact across the following areas: juvenile detention, juvenile court referrals, juvenile offending, and gang activity. 88.5% indicated that there would be increases in Juvenile detention 94.2% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Court Referrals 86.6% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Offending 80.5% indicated that there would be increased Gang Activity.

Social Service Directors (or their designees) were asked to assess the impact to their agencies in the following areas: consumer costs, residential placements, and custody assignments to DSS.

84.6% indicated possible increased consumer costs for DSS services. 95.0% indicated that there would be increased DSS residential placements. 92.5% indicated that there would be increased custody assignments to DSS.

Mental Health Directors were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact their service usage and provision.

96.1% indicated that there would be increased use of inpatient services. 81.0% indicated increased delays for juvenile psychological assessments

School Administrators & Principals were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact school operation.

91.2% indicated that there would be an increase in truancies. 91.2% indicated that there would be increased school suspensions 97.1% indicated that there would be an increase in school dropouts.

CONCLUSIONS No significant differences were found to exist between the responses of urban and rural counties. Similarly, analyses were conducted to determine if there were any differences between high-crime counties and those with low juvenile offending. We found no differences. In either case, both groups indicated with comparable levels of strength that deceased funding would impact their communities negatively. This suggests that JCPC funding has come to be an integral part of the community level response to juvenile offending across the state. By asking “agency specific” questions, we were able to assess indirectly the level of integration of JCPC programs with other community efforts. It is apparent from the response patterns that the communities have obtained a significant amount of program and agency level collaboration.

83

Across all dimensions, respondents indicated their agreement that discontinued funding would have negative impacts on the arenas covered by their respective agencies. It is evident that this collaboration has reached a point where financial disruption in one arena has substantial programmatic and operational effects for all others. SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS A major focus of the survey was on obtaining candid responses from council members. To that end, respondents were given the opportunity to type in answers in the following categories: 1) recommendations for improving services, and 2) the consequences of decreased funding. 645 respondents took the opportunity to type in responses. Eight major themes emerged from this section of the survey yielding a valuable source of information. 1) Testimonials Generally, these comments are testaments to the quality of services in a given county. By and large, council members lauded their programs and remarked on the value these programs have for their communities. 2) Impact of Discontinued Funding Respondents spoke to the negative consequences resulting from decreased funding across several domains. Of particular interest was the high number of respondents indicating that decreased funding would create severe strains on their communities:

1) decreased service provision because of an inability to continue providing much needed services; 2) concern over general increases in youthful offending and delinquency; 3) Financial strain on county budgets and agency budgets.

3) General Funding Recommendations Respondents indicated concerns over how funds are distributed noting that the level & distribution and the allocation parameters are inconsistent with actual crime levels and the financial capacities of communities. 4) Supervision/Accountability/Governance Multiple themes surfaced in this arena.

1) Concern that there is insufficient accountability of programs; 2) A concern that disruptions to funding is a function of JCPC program performance;

84

3) Calls for increased monitoring and coordination of programs supervised by JCPCs.

5) Technical Assistance Many respondents indicated that there was a need for greater technical assistance for JCPCs and the programs they supervise. 6) Service Level/Type Though many of these comments mention funding, they specify the need to funnel funds toward specific programs/initiatives. A popular theme among many respondents was a concern that there is not enough effort and monies directed toward prevention services. 7) Coordination of Services Generally respondents indicated that there was a greater need for communication and collaboration between entities (e.g., coordination between schools and JCPC programs; and collaboration between neighboring counties). 8) Parent/Community Involvement Many respondents suggested that there is a need for more communally oriented service provision inclusive of parents and community members. Respondents identified a lack of parental involvement as a chronic problem faced by the agencies and programs they supervise. CONCLUSIONS Overall, these responses indicate that there is substantial confidence in the missions of the JCPCs. However, there is a consistent theme of concern over the how the councils and programs are functioning. It cannot be determined from this survey whether this concern is based upon objective assessments, or if the concern is a function of the apparent anxiety created over the funding changes. To make a valid determination would require a more in-depth study that looks specifically at the many issues identified herein: 1) Ascertaining the exact level of financial dependence communities have on state allocated funds as compared to other funding sources. 2) Assessment of how the network of juvenile services programs is functioning as a unit as opposed to separate evaluations of individual programs. 3) A systematic review of the funding formula to determine if it is consistent with identified community needs and responsive to changes in juvenile offense patterns. 4) A review of the accountability measures that are in place as aligned against standards of good practice for non-profit agencies and governance entities.

85

5) Targeted program level focused assessment to determine the level of functioning and the organizational needs of programs being funded by JCPCs. Nonetheless, based on the information given by respondents, there are several areas of concern. These issues point to potentially critical areas that may require addressing in the immediate future. Of primary concern is the harmonious functioning of the councils. This type of locally led initiative can only be successful to the extent that local individuals have confidence in their mission. The responses show that there is a high level of uncertainty concerning services and funding. This uncertainty may cause individual members to lose faith in their mission and thereby impact the functioning of the councils.

The enabling legislation that created the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils mandated the participation of agency representatives from across the spectrum of juvenile service providers. Largely, the General Assembly’s implicit goal of increasing program and inter-agency collaboration has been accomplished. However, if the uncertainty uncovered in this survey is allowed to persist, there exists the possibility of dismantling the collaborative inroads made by these agencies. This culture has facilitated the pooling of resources around the shared goal serving juveniles. The responses indicate that agencies like local United Way and County Governments willingly allocate supplemental program funds to JCPC programs. As mentioned above, this survey does not allow the drawing of specific conclusions regarding the actual extent to which these organizations are functionally and financially integrated. But, it has long been established that higher levels of integration between programs produces better outcomes for delinquent youth.

Because of the tight-knit nature of communities in rural areas, uncertainty can affect the level of confidence organizations have in the longevity of these programs. If programs are deemed to be unstable because of funding, referral agencies (like schools) may refrain from making referrals for fear of program closure. The result would likely be juveniles not receiving needed services or receiving services sporadically. Based on the survey results, there is no evidence that the concerns noted herein have manifested on a large scale. These conclusions are, however, potential hazards that can be foreseen based upon 1) the historical performance of community agencies in the state of North Carolina when faced with crises; and 2) the prevailing research literature that underscores the corrosive nature of uncertainty and its impact on organizational functioning.

86

Appendix A: Part Two

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

JCPC Program Provider Survey

Instructions

JCPC Survey: Program Manager's Questions The recently approved State Budget (HB 1473) requires the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils by February 1, 2008. This survey is designed to assist the Department in preparing this report. Please complete one questionnaire per program.

Please provide the following (*required)

First Name*

Last Name*

Title*

Phone*

Email*

County*

Program Name*

ProgramID#

Sustainability of Programming

1. Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is discontinued?

Yes (Skip to Q. 5)

Appendix B: Part One

96

No (Skip to Q. 2)

Sustainability Impact

If you answered "No" to question 1, then please indicate which of the following steps are likely to occur for your program if JCPC funding is discontinued

Yes No 2. Would your program reduce services? 3. Would your program reduce services to

DJJDP youth?

4. Would your program cease to operate?

Program Information

5. How many staff are currently employed with your program? (Use Integer Only)

6. If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many paid staff in your program would be lost? (Use Integer Only)

7. If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many adult community volunteers serving in your program would be lost? (Use Integer Only)

8. Please estimate what percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was "economically disadvantaged" (e.g. eligible for free lunch at school, family uses food stamps, etc.)? (Use Integer Only - Do not use % Sign)

9. How long has your program been in operation in your community in years? (Use Integer Only)

97

10. What was the highest number of youth on a waiting list for your program services in FY 06-07? (Use Integer Only)

11. What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth and/or families? Check all that apply:

( Select all that apply.) 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 NOON 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 MIDNIGHT

98

12. If applicable, provide the total amount of restitution in whole dollars that was paid to victim(s) during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only - Do not use $ Sign)

13. If applicable, provide the total number of community service hours completed by youth in your program during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only)

Community Impact

Please indicate on the scale below the estimated degree of unwanted consequences, as a result of discontinued JCPC funding to your program, related to the following areas in your county:

Unsure No

Impact Little

Impact Moderate

Impact Severe Impact

14. School Safety 15. Public Safety 16. Services to Victims 17. Services to Families and Children

Recommendations of Improving Program Services

18. The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for improving program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of the following that would assist in improving your program services:

( Select all that apply.) Increase program funding Increased duration of service Increased frequency of contact with clients Increased staff training Increased staff retention Expansion of program capacity

99

Increased supplemental services Increased fulfillment of restitution to victims Increased coordination and communication with Juvenile Court Counselors Increased program capacity to provide transportation to youth 19. Other recommendations for improving your program's services

100

JCPC Program Provider Survey Results as downloaded

Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is discontinued?

Would your program reduce services?

Appendix B: Part Two

101

Would your program reduce services to DJJDP youth?

Would your program cease to operate?

102

What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth and/or families? Check all that apply:

103

RATING THE IMPACT OF DECREASED JCPC FUNDING:

School Safety

104

Public

Safety Services to Victims

Services to Families and Children

105

106

The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for improving program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of the following that would assist in improving your program services:

107

Percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was "economically disadvantaged"

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Below 20% 20 to 29% 30 to 39% 40 to 49% 50 to 59% 60 to 69% 70 to 79% 80 to 89% 90 to 100%

Num

ber o

f Pro

gram

s R

epor

ting

108

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS: JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SERVICES SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The fifth section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “recommendations for improving services.” Beyond the obvious need to reinstate and increase funding as a means to improve service provision, recommendations fall into three areas: the funding formula; accountability and evaluation; and a philosophy and practice that emphasizes the family and System of Care dynamics. In order to generate recommendations for improving the services of Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs), two large surveys were conducted. First, the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University surveyed the JCPC membership in October, 2007, to ascertain the responses of this critical group on this topic (see Appendix A). Some 946 members of local JCPCs from all 100 counties responded to the structured survey questionnaire. The second large survey, conducted by the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in October, 2007, surveyed the JCPC program providers in all 100 counties. This survey resulted in responses from 515 of 632 program providers (81% response rate) in all 100 counties (see Appendix B). Department staff also provided input into the recommendations.

Program Improvement Recommendations The JCPC membership survey involved almost 1,000 law enforcement sheriffs and police chiefs, county managers/commissioners, school superintendents, directors of mental health and social services, and chief court counselors. Over 500 JCPC program providers responded. Finally, Department staff conducted structured brainstorming and input sessions on this important topic. A cluster analysis of survey and staff responses indicates that their recommendations for improving JCPC programs center around four areas:

109

1. A systematic review of the JCPC funding formula to determine if it is consistent with community needs, changes in juvenile offense patterns, and responsive to changes in population of juveniles ages 10-17. JCPC allocation amounts for each county are based on the amount allocated to the county for the previous fiscal year. By Administrative Code (28 NCAC 02A .0104), when expansion funds are provided by the legislature, the Department apportions the expansion funds to the counties in a) an equal amount, b) in a proportionate amount per county based on the county population that is 10-17 years of age or c) a combination of an equal amount and a proportionate amount based on population. Cuts by the legislature are also made in the same way. Because JCPC funds have a 30 year history, basically being allocated with a starting base from the previous fiscal year, there are county allocations that are not in line when compared with one another by population. NC General Statute 143B-550 (a)(2) states, “A formula shall be developed that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their communities.” Without a major expansion in funding, adjustments to allocations to bring the allocations in line according to population will result in cuts to smaller counties. The recommended review must be targeted at having the resources to increase the capacity of programs with demonstrated success. Documented need for additional programs, especially focused on prevention efforts, was also a prominent and frequent recommendation, as illustrated by the following survey participant responses:

• “The P in JCPC stands for Prevention. I would like to see more flexibility where JCPCs focus more resources on prevention efforts.”

• “Funding has been flat for years. If funding could be increased, current programs could better serve clients and new programs could be implemented.”

• “Increase funding cycles to give agencies enough time to actually deliver programs in their entirety.”

2. Improved JCPC program accountability and effectiveness was also a widely

expressed recommendation for program improvement. Recommendations from many community and staff respondents are summarized:

• Conduct a review of the accountability measures that are in place for

JCPCs as aligned to standards of good practice for non-profit agencies and government entities ($50,000 for independent review)

• Develop a grants management system that focuses on program effectiveness and that provides ongoing, online data updates and a paperless system of data entry for program monitoring and evaluation purposes. (An estimated $400,000 for hardware and software; an estimated $200,000 annually for 4 additional Information Technology staff)

• Provide increased funding for additional training of local JCPCs in program monitoring. ($200,000)

110

• Fund additional staff needed at the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to work with JCPCs to monitor program progress and perform internal audit functions, devise program improvement plans, develop program performance standards and outcomes for each JCPC program type, develop and implement a system of graduated interventions for programs not meeting performance standards (including de-funding where appropriate) and improve technical assistance capacity by the Department staff to JCPC programs. (4 additional area consultants with an estimated $200,000 annual cost; 4 additional internal audit staff with an estimated $200,000 annual cost)

3. Continued development of a consensus philosophy and effective teaming

vehicle(s) for addressing issues around effective problem identification, decision-making, prevention strategy and intervention planning, fidelity of implementation, and evaluation of services effectiveness. Child serving agencies throughout North Carolina, with support from the legislature, embrace a System of Care approach to service planning and service delivery. Mental Health Providers, Departments of Social Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, schools and other agencies are collaboratively working to approach the work with children, youth and families with one service plan for any youth and family that is strength-based and family centered. The agencies and families work in Child and Family Teams to assist youth and families to meet their needs. Any agency or person involved with the youth or family’s issues is involved in the Child and Family Team. Continuing to develop this approach in the work of service providers will improve communication and collaboration between service providers, both those funded through JCPCs and those with other funding sources and will benefit the effectiveness of services.

In addition to support for carrying out this collaborative approach, program

providers are eager for and are seeking training sessions, workshops, and networking opportunities to lend support to their on-going work. The Department will continue to seek and publicize opportunities for training in the collaborative approach and in skill building for all service providers. The Department will partner with JCPCs to encourage this collaborative approach in each community.

Summary and Conclusion

Section five of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review highlights major recommendations for improving JCPC programs and services. Sources of these recommendations included over 1,500 respondents to the JCPC Membership Survey and JCPC Program Provider Survey. The former was conducted by the Institute for Juvenile Justice at North Carolina Central University as an independent party study in October 2007. The latter was conducted by the Department in September 2007. Recommendations for JCPC program improvement clustered around three areas: (1) a systematic review of the JCPC funding formula to determine if it is consistent with community needs, changes in juvenile offense patterns, and changes in the juvenile ages 10-17 population, (2) improved JCPC program accountability and

111

effectiveness, including a review of accountability measures for JCPCs as aligned with standards of good practice for non-profit agencies and government entities, development of a paperless grants management system, increased funding to train JCPCs in program monitoring, and additional staff at the Department level to improve JCPC program monitoring and evaluation as well as internal auditing of fiscal processes, and (3) continued development of a consensus philosophy , practice and skill building that emphasizes the family and System of Care dynamics.

112

"Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership Survey” A Survey Prepared by the NC Juvenile Justice Institute, North Carolina Central University for The NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Raleigh, North Carolina October 2007 Requests for further information or permission to reprint should be addressed to the Juvenile Justice Institute, Criminal Justice Department – NC Central University 208 Whiting Criminal Justice Bldg. 1801 Fayetteville St. Durham, NC 27707 (919) 503-7091 www.ncjji.org

Appendix A: Part One

113

INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Juvenile Justice Institute was commissioned by the NCDJJDP to conduct a survey of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The Institute was commissioned to design and conduct this survey as a neutral and independent resource. Our report is focused on analyzing and reviewing the survey results with the stated objective of determining the predicted impact of discontinued funding. It was deemed that it would be most beneficial if this information was obtained directly from those charged with overseeing community based juvenile services. The survey was conducted between September and October 2007. The survey items were tested, and refined prior to launch via an internet based survey platform. The survey was closed on October 5th. In order to obtain the maximum number of respondents to participate and to receive unbiased feedback, respondents were allowed to post anonymous responses to the questions. Secondly, it was made clear that that survey collection was being handled by an independent entity and not from the vendor - DJJDP SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS In total, 946 responses were received from council members from across the state. The excellent response rate of approximately 50% to the survey indicated that users were eager to provide their feedback. Responses were received from all 100 counties. There was roughly equal representation from rural and urban counties. The survey was designed to give a multiple perspectives of the issue. The survey was divided into two sections. The first section was designed to obtain a global measure of the impact of discontinued funding across four dimensions: School Safety, Public Safety, Services to Victims, and Services to Families and Children. For each of these criteria, respondents were asked to indicate whether discontinued funding would impact service provision. Overwhelmingly, respondents agreed that “Decreased State JCPC Funding” would negatively impact each of these areas.

Services to Families and Children: 98.0% Agreement Services to Victims: 88.5% Agreement Public Safety: 94.4% Agreement School Safety: 93.1% Agreement

114

115

The second section solicited responses from council members representing targeted community or government agencies. We asked very specific questions to agency representatives to determine the impact of discontinued funding to their overall functioning (see Appendix 1 for actual survey graphs).

Law enforcement personnel represented by sheriffs, school resource officers, and police chiefs were asked to assess the impact across the following areas: juvenile detention, juvenile court referrals, juvenile offending, and gang activity. 88.5% indicated that there would be increases in Juvenile detention 94.2% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Court Referrals 86.6% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Offending 80.5% indicated that there would be increased Gang Activity.

Social Service Directors (or their designees) were asked to assess the impact to their agencies in the following areas: consumer costs, residential placements, and custody assignments to DSS.

84.6% indicated possible increased consumer costs for DSS services. 95.0% indicated that there would be increased DSS residential placements. 92.5% indicated that there would be increased custody assignments to DSS.

Mental Health Directors were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact their service usage and provision.

96.1% indicated that there would be increased use of inpatient services. 81.0% indicated increased delays for juvenile psychological assessments

School Administrators & Principals were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact school operation.

91.2% indicated that there would be an increase in truancies. 91.2% indicated that there would be increased school suspensions 97.1% indicated that there would be an increase in school dropouts.

CONCLUSIONS No significant differences were found to exist between the responses of urban and rural counties. Similarly, analyses were conducted to determine if there were any differences between high-crime counties and those with low juvenile offending. We found no differences. In either case, both groups indicated with comparable levels of strength that deceased funding would impact their communities negatively. This suggests that JCPC funding has come to be an integral part of the community level response to juvenile offending across the state. By asking “agency specific” questions, we were able to assess indirectly the level of integration of JCPC programs with other community efforts. It is apparent from the response patterns that the communities have obtained a significant amount of program and agency level collaboration.

116

Across all dimensions, respondents indicated their agreement that discontinued funding would have negative impacts on the arenas covered by their respective agencies. It is evident that this collaboration has reached a point where financial disruption in one arena has substantial programmatic and operational effects for all others. SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS A major focus of the survey was on obtaining candid responses from council members. To that end, respondents were given the opportunity to type in answers in the following categories: 1) recommendations for improving services, and 2) the consequences of decreased funding. 645 respondents took the opportunity to type in responses. Eight major themes emerged from this section of the survey yielding a valuable source of information. 1) Testimonials Generally, these comments are testaments to the quality of services in a given county. By and large, council members lauded their programs and remarked on the value these programs have for their communities. 2) Impact of Discontinued Funding Respondents spoke to the negative consequences resulting from decreased funding across several domains. Of particular interest was the high number of respondents indicating that decreased funding would create severe strains on their communities:

1) decreased service provision because of an inability to continue providing much needed services; 2) concern over general increases in youthful offending and delinquency; 3) Financial strain on county budgets and agency budgets.

3) General Funding Recommendations Respondents indicated concerns over how funds are distributed noting that the level & distribution and the allocation parameters are inconsistent with actual crime levels and the financial capacities of communities. 4) Supervision/Accountability/Governance Multiple themes surfaced in this arena.

1) Concern that there is insufficient accountability of programs; 2) A concern that disruptions to funding is a function of JCPC program performance;

117

3) Calls for increased monitoring and coordination of programs supervised by JCPCs.

5) Technical Assistance Many respondents indicated that there was a need for greater technical assistance for JCPCs and the programs they supervise. 6) Service Level/Type Though many of these comments mention funding, they specify the need to funnel funds toward specific programs/initiatives. A popular theme among many respondents was a concern that there is not enough effort and monies directed toward prevention services. 7) Coordination of Services Generally respondents indicated that there was a greater need for communication and collaboration between entities (e.g., coordination between schools and JCPC programs; and collaboration between neighboring counties). 8) Parent/Community Involvement Many respondents suggested that there is a need for more communally oriented service provision inclusive of parents and community members. Respondents identified a lack of parental involvement as a chronic problem faced by the agencies and programs they supervise. CONCLUSIONS Overall, these responses indicate that there is substantial confidence in the missions of the JCPCs. However, there is a consistent theme of concern over the how the councils and programs are functioning. It cannot be determined from this survey whether this concern is based upon objective assessments, or if the concern is a function of the apparent anxiety created over the funding changes. To make a valid determination would require a more in-depth study that looks specifically at the many issues identified herein: 1) Ascertaining the exact level of financial dependence communities have on state allocated funds as compared to other funding sources. 2) Assessment of how the network of juvenile services programs is functioning as a unit as opposed to separate evaluations of individual programs. 3) A systematic review of the funding formula to determine if it is consistent with identified community needs and responsive to changes in juvenile offense patterns. 4) A review of the accountability measures that are in place as aligned against standards of good practice for non-profit agencies and governance entities.

118

5) Targeted program level focused assessment to determine the level of functioning and the organizational needs of programs being funded by JCPCs. Nonetheless, based on the information given by respondents, there are several areas of concern. These issues point to potentially critical areas that may require addressing in the immediate future. Of primary concern is the harmonious functioning of the councils. This type of locally led initiative can only be successful to the extent that local individuals have confidence in their mission. The responses show that there is a high level of uncertainty concerning services and funding. This uncertainty may cause individual members to lose faith in their mission and thereby impact the functioning of the councils.

The enabling legislation that created the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils mandated the participation of agency representatives from across the spectrum of juvenile service providers. Largely, the General Assembly’s implicit goal of increasing program and inter-agency collaboration has been accomplished. However, if the uncertainty uncovered in this survey is allowed to persist, there exists the possibility of dismantling the collaborative inroads made by these agencies. This culture has facilitated the pooling of resources around the shared goal serving juveniles. The responses indicate that agencies like local United Way and County Governments willingly allocate supplemental program funds to JCPC programs. As mentioned above, this survey does not allow the drawing of specific conclusions regarding the actual extent to which these organizations are functionally and financially integrated. But, it has long been established that higher levels of integration between programs produces better outcomes for delinquent youth.

Because of the tight-knit nature of communities in rural areas, uncertainty can affect the level of confidence organizations have in the longevity of these programs. If programs are deemed to be unstable because of funding, referral agencies (like schools) may refrain from making referrals for fear of program closure. The result would likely be juveniles not receiving needed services or receiving services sporadically. Based on the survey results, there is no evidence that the concerns noted herein have manifested on a large scale. These conclusions are, however, potential hazards that can be foreseen based upon 1) the historical performance of community agencies in the state of North Carolina when faced with crises; and 2) the prevailing research literature that underscores the corrosive nature of uncertainty and its impact on organizational functioning.

119

Appendix A: Part Two

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

JCPC Program Provider Survey

Instructions

JCPC Survey: Program Manager's Questions The recently approved State Budget (HB 1473) requires the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils by February 1, 2008. This survey is designed to assist the Department in preparing this report. Please complete one questionnaire per program.

Please provide the following (*required)

First Name*

Last Name*

Title*

Phone*

Email*

County*

Program Name*

ProgramID#

Sustainability of Programming

1. Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is discontinued?

Yes (Skip to Q. 5)

Appendix B: Part One

129

No (Skip to Q. 2)

Sustainability Impact

If you answered "No" to question 1, then please indicate which of the following steps are likely to occur for your program if JCPC funding is discontinued

Yes No 2. Would your program reduce services? 3. Would your program reduce services to

DJJDP youth?

4. Would your program cease to operate?

Program Information

5. How many staff are currently employed with your program? (Use Integer Only)

6. If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many paid staff in your program would be lost? (Use Integer Only)

7. If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many adult community volunteers serving in your program would be lost? (Use Integer Only)

8. Please estimate what percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was "economically disadvantaged" (e.g. eligible for free lunch at school, family uses food stamps, etc.)? (Use Integer Only - Do not use % Sign)

9. How long has your program been in operation in your community in years? (Use Integer Only)

130

10. What was the highest number of youth on a waiting list for your program services in FY 06-07? (Use Integer Only)

11. What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth and/or families? Check all that apply:

( Select all that apply.) 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 NOON 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 MIDNIGHT

131

12. If applicable, provide the total amount of restitution in whole dollars that was paid to victim(s) during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only - Do not use $ Sign)

13. If applicable, provide the total number of community service hours completed by youth in your program during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only)

Community Impact

Please indicate on the scale below the estimated degree of unwanted consequences, as a result of discontinued JCPC funding to your program, related to the following areas in your county:

Unsure No

Impact Little

Impact Moderate

Impact Severe Impact

14. School Safety 15. Public Safety 16. Services to Victims 17. Services to Families and Children

Recommendations of Improving Program Services

18. The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for improving program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of the following that would assist in improving your program services:

( Select all that apply.) Increase program funding Increased duration of service Increased frequency of contact with clients Increased staff training Increased staff retention Expansion of program capacity

132

Increased supplemental services Increased fulfillment of restitution to victims Increased coordination and communication with Juvenile Court Counselors Increased program capacity to provide transportation to youth 19. Other recommendations for improving your program's services

133

JCPC Program Provider Survey Results as downloaded Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is discontinued?

Would your program reduce services?

Appendix B: Part Two

134

Would your program reduce services to DJJDP youth?

Would your program cease to operate?

135

What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth and/or families? Check all that apply:

136

RATING THE IMPACT OF DECREASED JCPC FUNDING:

School Safety

137

Public

Safety Services to Victims

Services to Families and Children

138

139

The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for improving program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of the following that would assist in improving your program services:

140

Percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was "economically disadvantaged"

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Below 20% 20 to 29% 30 to 39% 40 to 49% 50 to 59% 60 to 69% 70 to 79% 80 to 89% 90 to 100%

Num

ber o

f Pro

gram

s R

epor

ting

141

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS: JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING COSTS SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The sixth section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “recommendations for reducing costs.” The over 500 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) programs statewide work to operate in a cost-efficient and effective manner but recent discussions among JCPC programs, JCPC members, and Department staff have generated several possible recommendations for reducing costs associated with the operation of JCPC programs. Five recommendations for possible cost reductions are discussed that focus on making JCPC programs and services more cost-effective and operationally efficient while improving quality assurance. A concluding recommendation about the savings associated with JCPC funding itself is also offered. Recommendations for Reducing Costs The first recommendation for reducing costs involves transitioning from an annual to multi-year planning process for the JCPCs. This change was initiated in fall 2007 and will address the 2008-09 planning year. The option will allow JCPCs to increase their collaboration with other county agencies in strategic planning, including opportunities to reduce services overlap, improve transportation for clients, improve scheduling, and increase leveraging of JCPC funding in relation to other funding that may be available to JCPC clients in their respective counties. Multi-year funding (commensurate with the Legislative Biennium) could provide further cost savings in terms of program planning, budgeting, and volume purchasing efficiencies. The second cost-saving recommendation proposed is to implement a paperless system of reporting for Requests for Proposals, Program Agreements, program monitoring, and county JCPC planning. This system will result in staff time savings that could translate into greater efficiency in JCPC administrative costs and reduce Department staff time cost

142

The third recommendation for reducing costs proposes the use of videoconferencing as a means of reducing members and service providers’ travel time and related costs associated with ongoing training needed for JCPC members and service providers on a regular basis. This recommendation will also result in savings on facilities rental and related training costs. As a fourth cost-reduction proposal, the JCPCs and Department staff propose a collaborative effort to refine and enhance the existing program effectiveness monitoring and evaluation system to improve the use of JCPC staff and members’ time as well as that used by service providers in demonstrating the effectiveness of individual programs and services. This improved system will increase staff time efficiencies in program monitoring and evaluation as well as provide the JCPCs with improved data upon which to act on programs that are not meeting standards for program effectiveness. Thus, a continuum of interventions implemented in these situations will result in cost savings by either making program improvements or making a decision to discontinue funding of ineffective or poorly managed JCPC programs. This recommendation could be coupled with a system that equitably re-allocates available discretionary funds as early in the fiscal year as possible. A fifth proposal for cost reductions involves an initiative by JCPCs to work with county agencies through interagency collaboration to reduce any overlap in services. This strategy would allow not only the JCPC, but other community and county agencies to plan more effective as well as cost-efficient services by reducing overlap in referrals, assessments, as well as direct services to youth served by multiple agencies. Summary and Conclusion Section six of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report focuses on recommendations for reducing costs related to the operation of JCPC funded grant programs and services throughout the State. Recommendations emphasize possible cost savings and improved program quality assurance resulting from JCPC multi-year strategic planning, a paperless system of grants management, use of videoconferencing as a tool for ongoing JCPC member and service provider training, an initiative to improve the JCPC program monitoring and evaluation system, and a systematic review and plan of action by JCPCs and county agencies to reduce any overlap in services and to better serve underserved youth. An additional point about reducing costs in this area involves a concluding recommendation that has been voiced in other parts of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s response to the continuation review requirements. This recommendation highlights that costs are saved through the expenditure of Juvenile Crime Prevention Council funds. By reinstating and increasing these funds, an investment in the people and communities of the State occurs with associated cost savings in multiple areas: law enforcement; the court system; juvenile justice; and adult corrections. Expenditures which focus on prevention now bring benefits today and into the future. Every youth who increasingly engages in juvenile delinquency and crime costs the State more resources and represents a loss beyond those costs in terms of his or her future positive contributions as a taxpaying citizen of the State.

143

CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS: JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:

POLICY ISSUES SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section. SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program: (1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the resource requirements. (2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. (3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. (4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. (5) Recommendations for improving services. (6) Recommendations for reducing costs. (7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. The seventh section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention identify “policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.” Discussions with local Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) members, service providers, and Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention staff yielded six possible policy issues that need to be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. Policy Issues Issue One: Support Prevention. Provide funding that targets prevention. GS 143B-543 states: “It is the intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent.” With the current average cost of just under $1000 per year for successfully maintaining a youth served by JCPC supported programs in the community versus an annual cost of $95,720 per youth in a youth development center, there is clear and compelling reason to restore and increase funding for youth to be served in lesser restrictive environments and via programs in their local communities. Funding the “front end” of the juvenile justice system with monies that would otherwise go to the “back end” of the system fits statute intent and is in alignment with what has happened in juvenile justice over the last nine years as the committed population has been reduced by almost 70 percent and the number of youth served in communities has increased. Issue Two: Serve Youth Who Are “At Risk”. During the course of the Continuation Review, the Department was made aware of some people’s interest in limiting the delivery of JCPC services to youth who have opened the juvenile justice system door and crossed the threshold into the court system. This is a very short sighted way of implementing the JCPC approach as it is much wiser to spend money on youth who are “at risk” in addition to those who are already “in trouble” or adjudicated as opposed to spending money on only youth who are in the latter category. Failing to spend money on the “at risk” population will lead to an increased population

144

of youth who become delinquent, commit crimes, and are adjudicated. The earlier services can be provided to youth, the more likely they will make the right choices of staying in school and staying out of trouble. Issue Three: Review and revise JCPC funding allocation formula. This policy area received unanimous support from those in the communities as well as Department staff when it was discussed as part of the Continuation Review. The policy issue centers on how to distribute the State JCPC allocation in a fair and equitable way to best meet the needs of youth and the communities in which they reside. Wide variation in population and community resources across counties are just two of the variables that should be included in discussions about the allocation formula. Issue Four: Investigate blended funding from various state agencies for JCPC targeted at-risk youth. Given the frequent service profile (which may involve mental health and social service agencies, local schools, and other non-profit service providers) of youth served by JCPC funded programs, there is reason to investigate the use of funds from various state agencies to meet the needs of these youth. Once a youth becomes involved with the juvenile justice system, access to resources funded through other agencies may be limited due to policies unique to other state agencies that do not serve delinquent youth in their primary or core responsibilities. Issue Five: Recognize the need for mental health services for youth and provide funding to meet these needs. The mental health needs of youth are increasingly being acknowledged, and youth and their families are increasingly frequent consumers of mental health assessment and intervention/treatment services. The availability of these services is lacking, and funding is not adequate to meet need. How these needs and the lack of services should be addressed as well as where to target funding are all policy issues that impact JCPCs as some currently attempt to meet these needs and fill the service gaps. Issue Six: Enhance accountability and evaluation. Additional resources are needed to enhance accountability and improve the evaluation of JCPC program effectiveness and quality assurance. Technology improvements, additional Department staff, the establishment of a paperless system for JCPC grants, and setting research-based standards for all JCPC programs would all enhance the accountability that is desired for JCPCs. How to best implement the Standard Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) needs discussion in terms of its role in program development and evaluation. Summary and Conclusion Section seven of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review addresses policy issues for consideration by the General Assembly. Six policy issues were proposed for attention: prevention; youth served; allocation; blended funding; mental health needs and services; and accountability and evaluation. Each requires discussion and decision.