SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT ... · SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE...

Criminal Justice Research Division, SANDAG

SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT EVALUATION REPORT February 2014 Cynthia Burke, Ph.D. Grace Mino, M.A. Kandice Ocheltree Liz Doroski

401 B Street

Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 699-1900

bulletin

A SANDAG CJ BULLETIN

Rev. 012914

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates

resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR Hon. Jack Dale

FIRST VICE CHAIR Hon. Jim Janney

SECOND VICE CHAIR Hon. Don Higginson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Matt Hall, Mayor (A) Hon. Farrah Douglas, Councilmember (A) Hon. Lorraine Wood, Councilmember

CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor (A) Hon. Pamela Bensoussan, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember

CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Michael Woiwode, Councilmember (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember (A) Hon. Casey Tanaka, Mayor

CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Terry Sinnott, Councilmember (A) Hon. Lee Haydu, Mayor (A) Hon. Al Corti, Deputy Mayor

CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Bill Wells, Mayor (A) Hon. Gary Kendrick, Councilmember

CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Lisa Shaffer, Councilmember (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Mayor (A) Hon. Tony Kranz, Councilmember

CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Sam Abed, Mayor (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Councilmember (A) Hon. John Masson, Councilmember

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor (A) Hon. Ed Spriggs, Councilmember (A) Hon. Brian Bilbray, Councilmember

CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Kristine Alessio, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Ruth Sterling, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember

CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. George Gastil, Councilmember

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor (A) Hon. Luis Natividad, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Alejandra Sotelo-Solis, Councilmember

CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember (A) Hon. Gary Felien, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember

CITY OF POWAY Hon. Don Higginson, Mayor (A) Hon. Jim Cunningham, Councilmember (A) Hon. John Mullin, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Todd Gloria, Interim Mayor (A) Hon. Sherri Lightner , Councilmember (A) Hon. Lorie Zapf, Councilmember Vacant (A) Hon. Marti Emerald, Councilmember (A) Hon. Myrtle Cole, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Chris Orlando, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Vice Mayor

CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember (A) Hon. Rob McNelis, Vice Mayor

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Lesa Heebner, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Mayor (A) Hon. David A. Zito, Councilmember

CITY OF VISTA Hon. Judy Ritter, Mayor (A) Hon. John Aguilera, Councilmember (A) Hon. Amanda Rigby, Councilmember

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Supervisor (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Vice Chair

ADVISORY MEMBERS

IMPERIAL COUNTY Hon. John Renison, Supervisor, District 1 (A) Hon. Bill Hodge, Mayor, City of Calexico

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Malcolm Dougherty, Director (A) Laurie Berman, District 11 Director

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Al Ovrom

NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Hon. Bill Horn, Chairman (A) Hon. Ed Gallo (A) Hon. Mike Nichols

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CAPT Darius Banaji, CEC, USN, Commanding Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (A) CAPT Richard L. Whipple, CEC, USN, Executive Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Hon. Bob Nelson, Chairman (A) Hon. Dan Malcolm, Commissioner

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Tom Wornham, Chairman (A) David Barnum, Director

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION Hon. Allen Lawson, Chairman, San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Indians Hon. Robert Smith, Chairman, Pala Band of Mission Indians

MEXICO Hon. Remedios Gómez-Arnau, Cónsul General of Mexico (A) Hon. Francisco J. Olivarría, Deputy Cónsul General of Mexico Hon. Alberto Diaz

C J B U L L ET I N - SA N D I EG O C OU N T Y JU V EN I L E J U S T IC E C R I M E PR E VEN T I ON A C T E VA L U A T I ON RE PO RT F E BR A U A R Y 2 0 14

1

SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT EVALUATION REPORT FACT SHEET

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the San Diego County Probation Department

applied for and received state funding through the

Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000, now

referred to as the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention

Act, or JJCPA. Based on information compiled by a

Technical Working Group, the Juvenile Justice

Coordinating Council recommended to the San Diego

County Board of Supervisors that JJCPA funds be used

to (1) continue existing and proven programs for

which grant funds were expiring; and (2) augment

existing and proven programs to meet the needs/gaps

in the identified communities. Five programs in fiscal

year 2012-2013 received JJCPA funds: Community

Assessment Teams (CAT), which is a prevention

program; Truancy Supervision Program (TSP)1, which is

a supervision program; and three treatment programs:

Juvenile Drug Court, which includes Substance Abuse

Services (SAS), Breaking Cycles, the Juvenile Forensic

Assistance for Stabilization and Treatment (JFAST)

program which was added this fiscal year.

As part of the evaluation, the Criminal Justice

Research Division of the San Diego Association of

Governments (SANDAG) is utilizing a quasi-

experimental design in which program participants are

compared to baseline group (based on average

outcomes for previous participants) regarding

probation compliance and recidivism. In addition, pre-

post comparisons are made for program participants

related to changes in risks and needs, as well as

treatment-related outcomes. The results of this

evaluation are presented in this report.

1 The Truancy Supervision Program was removed from the evaluation in FY 2009-10 due to fiscal constraints, but was added back in FY 2012-13 due to an increase in the budget.

OUTCOMES

The JJCPA programs in the San Diego region that

provide a continuum of services to youth continue to

show positive results. The following outcomes

illustrate the ability of each program to make positive

changes in the lives of youth.

Program participants were significantly more

resilient (greater number of protective

factors/fewer risk factors) when exiting the

program compared to entry.

Significantly fewer CAT participants had an arrest

or a violent or drug referral, compared to the

baseline group.

On average, TSP youth showed significant

improvement in their grade point average at

program exit.

The percent of positive client drug tests decreased

significantly over time for Juvenile Drug Court and

SAS participants.

Breaking Cycles clients were significantly less likely

to have a violent referral than the baseline group.

This is the first year the JFAST program has been

added to the JJCPA evaluation and participants

have been compliant with attending therapy.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Deve lopment of the Comprehens ive St rategy

During the 1990s, San Diego County experienced an

increase in juvenile crime and violence. It was

recognized that a new method of perceiving,

approaching, and resolving juvenile delinquency issues


2

was needed. The goals of a new strategy were to

prevent and reduce juvenile crime and delinquency,

promote positive development of youth, and increase

the safety of communities. The pursuit of an

innovative, comprehensive, integrated, and

collaborative system of prevention, intervention, and

treatment services for youth and families resulted in

San Diego County becoming one of the first three

sites in the nation to be provided with technical

assistance from the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for the

implementation of a “Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders.” As part of

the implementation, consultants hired by OJJDP from

the National Council on Crime and Delinquency

(NCCD) and Development Research Programs (DRP)

conducted a local site visit to San Diego and provided

training to county and community policymakers, other

key leaders, and 200 line staff and community

members in December 1996. During this training,

participants made a commitment to join and

participate in the San Diego County Comprehensive

Strategy Team. Two task forces (Graduated Sanctions

and Prevention) were formed (and later combined)

with the purpose of continuing the planning process

for the Comprehensive Strategy by focusing on the

issues of resource development, coordination,

community engagement, advocacy, key leader buy-in,

and information sharing.

2

Burke, C. (2013) Arrests 2012: Law Enforcement Response to

Crime in the San Diego Region. San Diego, CA: SANDAG

These efforts culminated in a two-day workshop in

October 1997 with more than 150 participants

developing six promising approaches to fill the needs

and gaps identified in the continuum of services, from

prevention through graduated sanctions. In the fall of

1998, the San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy

for Youth, Family, and Community was published and

widely distributed to stakeholders and others

throughout the region.

San Diego County’s Comprehensive Strategy proposed

an integrated systems approach, with the expectation

of sustained and measured results, that was based

upon the shared vision that all of San Diego’s youth

could develop into Caring, Literate, Educated, and

Responsible (CLEaR) community members. Borrowing

from OJJDP, the Comprehensive Strategy began with

2012 ARREST RATE FOR ADULTS HIGHER THAN FOR

JUVENILES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE PAST TEN YEARS

The arrest rate for juveniles has traditionally

been higher than the adult arrest rate over the

last ten years but for the first time, the juvenile

arrest rate was lower than the adult rate for

2012. In 2012, the rate for juvenile arrests was

30.8 compared to 41.1 in 2011. The decrease in

juvenile arrests in our region could reflect, in

part, to the long-term success of the San Diego

County Comprehensive Strategy Team.

WHERE DO I FIND INFORMATION?

History and Background ............................... 1

Development of the Comprehensive Strategy ............................... 1

The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council’s Role .......................... 3

JJCPA Planning Process ................................. 4

Allocation Changes ....................................... 5

Evaluation Methodology .............................. 6

Justice-Related Outcome Measures ....................................... 7

Risk Reduction Measure ................................ 7

Other Measures ............................................ 9

Program Overviews and Evaluation Results.................................. 9

CAT .............................................................. 9

TSP ............................................................. 13

SAS ............................................................ 16

Juvenile Drug Court .................................... 19

Breaking Cycles .......................................... 23

JFAST ......................................................... 27

Appendix Tables ......................................... 33


3

the same five general principles: (1) strengthening

families; (2) supporting core social institutions in their

roles of developing capable, mature, and responsible

youth; (3) promoting prevention as the most cost-

effective and humane approach to reducing juvenile

delinquency; (4) intervening immediately and

effectively when delinquent behavior occurs; and

(5) identifying and sanctioning a small group of the

most serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.

The Juveni le Just ice Coordinat ing Counci l ’ s Ro le

In 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors

appointed a 22-member Juvenile Justice Coordinating

Council (JJCC) that combined expertise from all areas

of the juvenile justice system in San Diego County. The

JJCC represents a regional coordinated effort with the

goal of working to strengthen communities and

families to develop healthy and responsible youth

through prevention, intervention, and, when

appropriate, graduated sanctions. The JJCC is involved

in continually refining the juvenile justice plan and

selecting and designing best practice, proven

programs to fill the identified gaps in the continuum

of juvenile justice services.

In December 1996, with funding from a planning

grant through the California Board of Corrections

(BOC) (now called the Corrections Standards Authority

(CSA)), the JJCC was tasked with completing the

SB 1760 Local Action Plan (LAP), as well as

coordinating the Comprehensive Strategy planning

process. By early 1997, San Diego’s first LAP, with

strategies to prevent and reduce juvenile crime, was

completed and submitted, along with a Challenge I

grant proposal to the BOC. San Diego County was

successful in this endeavor and began implementation

of the Breaking Cycles Demonstration Project in July

1997. At this time, Breaking Cycles consisted of two

components: a graduated sanctions program and a

prevention program called the Community Assessment

Teams (CAT).

Additional Challenge Grant funds became available in

1998, providing San Diego with the opportunity to

offer gender-responsive services for at-risk young

female offenders when they first enter the juvenile

justice system. The 1997 LAP was updated, published,

and submitted in 1999, along with a proposal to

implement the Working to Insure and Nurture Girls’

Success (WINGS) program. This grant also was

awarded, and the WINGS program commenced on

July 1, 1999.

Recognizing the valuable input service providers have

with respect to meeting the needs of at-risk youth

while being sensitive to conflict-of-interest issues, the

composition of the JJCC was changed and a separate

entity, the Juvenile Justice Comprehensive Strategy

Task Force (JJCST), was formed in February 2006. The

purpose of this new group is for service providers,

legislators, and the general public to have input in the

process without direct involvement in funding

decisions. The purpose of the JJCC remains the same,

and it continues to be chaired by the Chief Probation

Officer and is comprised of members from the District

Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, city police, Board of

Supervisors, Health and Human Services, and

education departments, as well as the faith and

business communities. Community-based agencies

also participate as long as they are not recipients of

JJCPA funds. The JJCC and the JJCST continue to meet

on a regular basis. This two-pronged structure enables

the JJCC to ensure equitable and unbiased funding

decisions, while maintaining the flow of information

critical in addressing the needs of at-risk youth and

their families. The JJCC receives input from the JJCST,

provides oversight for the Comprehensive Multi-

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY’S

COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

1. Strengthen families

2. Support core social institutions in their roles of

developing capable, mature, and responsible

youth

3. Promote prevention as the most cost-effective

and humane approach to reducing juvenile

delinquency

4. Intervene immediately and effectively when

delinquent behavior occurs

5. Identify and sanction a small group of the most

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders


4

Agency Juvenile Justice Plan, and has made great

strides in improving outcomes for San Diego.

J JCPA P lanning Process

In 2000, the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act

(now referred to as JJCPA) provided another

opportunity for San Diego to expand delinquency-

prevention and intervention programs. The Act called

for an in-depth evaluation of local juvenile justice

systems to identify and prioritize neighborhoods,

schools, and communities facing significant juvenile

crime and public safety risk. The Act also sought to

develop local juvenile justice strategies that would

provide a continuum of responses to juvenile crime.

NOTE: Name has been changed to protect the client’s privacy.

In August 2000, members from the JJCC, the

Comprehensive Strategy Coordinator, and Probation

staff formed a Technical Work Group. The purpose of

this group was to gather and review information

(including previous LAPs that accompanied BOC

Challenge I and Challenge II grant applications, as well

as arrest, probation referral, and placement statistics),

and formulate specific recommendations for the full

Council to consider. In addition to meeting on a

weekly basis, the group also distributed a community

survey to over 700 local stakeholders and used the

responses to help guide the discussion regarding

regional and community risk factors, needs, and

issues. After reviewing the compiled information and

the recommendations of the Technical Work Group,

the Council identified the top risk factors for juvenile

delinquency in San Diego County: family management

problems, substance abuse and the availability of

drugs, negative peer influence, and lack of school

commitment. Based upon these risk factors, the top

needs/gaps in the system were identified as:

family services;

positive peer influence;

truancy programs/services;

mentoring; and

competency building.

On November 1, 2000, the JJCC voted to recommend

to the Board of Supervisors that JJCPA funds be used

in FY 2001-02 to continue existing and proven

programs where grant funds were expiring and to

augment existing and proven programs to meet the

needs/gaps in the identified communities. Two weeks

later, the JJCC identified seven programs for JJCPA

funding and adopted a draft proposal. These originally

included three prevention programs (CAT, the Truancy

Suppression Project,3 and the Community Youth

Collaboratives (CYC)); one intervention program

(WINGS); two supervision programs (Repeat Offender

Prevention Program (ROPP) and Juvenile Drug Court);

and a graduated sanctions program (Breaking Cycles).

However, it should be noted that categorizing each of

the programs is somewhat artificial as they often

encompass a continuum of services that include

prevention, intervention, supervision, and treatment.

3 Suppression Project is in italics to distinguish it from the Truancy Supervision Program. The name of the program was changed in FY 2003-04 to better reflect the services provided.

GENDER-RESPONSIVE SERVICES

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

Alicia was referred to the WINGS program after

being incarcerated for biting and resisting an officer.

At the time, she was using marijuana, had failing

grades, and was dating a male who was physically

abusive. Her relationship with her mother was

volatile to the point that police were called on a

daily basis. Through WINGS, she participated in

individual and family therapy, attended a program

about making better relationship choices, completed

a six-month substance abuse program, and fulfilled

her court-mandated community service requirement.

WINGs staff helped her mother, who was also a

victim of domestic violence, find a support group to

assist with her emotional well-being. Since beginning

the program, Alicia has graduated from high school

and now attends a local community college with

plans to continue her education through the military

and become a nurse. In addition, she participated in

a Job Readiness program that included career

planning and a paid internship. Alicia and her

mother no longer yell or argue with each other.

Instead of having a boyfriend, she chooses to focus

on herself and her family. During the final meeting,

both Alicia and her mother stated they were sad the

program was coming to an end and were

appreciative for all the support.


5

Al locat ion Changes

Fiscal year 2000-01 was the first year JJCPA funds

were awarded to San Diego County and those dollars

were used for start-up costs. Program services began

in FY 2001-02. Since that time, these programs have

continued to receive state funds, though the amount

has fluctuated (table 1). Additional information,

summarized below by fiscal year, provides further

insight regarding the impact these changes had on the

programs.

In FY 2002-03, funding cuts did not impact

provision or level of program services because

those funds were used for start-up costs in the

first program year (FY 2001-02); however, CYC

funds were reduced and transferred to allow

WINGS services to be provided for another year

due to the unexpected elimination of Challenge II

grant funding for that program.

TABLE 1 JJCPA ALLOCATION CHANGES, 2000 – 2013

YEAR FUNDING CHANGES* FUNDED PROGRAMS

FY 2000-01 N/A Start-up funds only

FY 2001-02 N/A

Prevention: CAT, Truancy Suppression Project, CYC

Intervention: WINGS

Supervision: ROPP, Juvenile Drug Court

Graduated Sanctions: Breaking Cycles

FY 2002-03 -$500,000 No change from previous year

FY 2003-04 -$250,000

Prevention: CAT**

Supervision: Truancy Supervision Program (TSP)

Treatment: ROPP, Juvenile Drug Court/PMSA, Breaking Cycles

FY 2004-05 14% reduction

Prevention: CAT

Supervision: TSP

Treatment: Juvenile Drug Court/PMSA, Breaking Cycles

FY 2005-06 None No change from previous year

FY 2006-07 14% increase No change from previous year

FY 2007-08 None No change from previous year

FY 2008-09 21% reduction Prevention: CAT

Treatment: Juvenile Drug Court/SAS, Breaking Cycles

FY 2009-10 34% reduction Prevention: CAT


FY 2010-11 20% increase Prevention: CAT


FY 2011-12 5% increase Prevention: CAT


FY 2012-13 28% increase

Prevention: CAT

Supervision: TSP

Treatment: Juvenile Drug Court/SAS, Breaking Cycles, JFAST

NOTES: * Reflect State and local funding combined. ** WINGS program was incorporated into the CAT program. SOURCE: San Diego County Probation Department


6

In FY 2003-04, the CYC program was

discontinued; the CAT and WINGS programs were

combined (and referred to as CAT); and the

Juvenile Drug Court program was modified to

include Parenting, Mentoring, and Substance

Abuse Services (PMSA) that were previously

provided through CAT.

Also in FY 2003-04, the name of the Truancy

Suppression Project was changed to the Truancy

Supervision Program (TSP) to better reflect the

services provided, and ROPP, Juvenile Drug

Court/PMSA, and Breaking Cycles were redefined

as treatment programs since they incorporate a

broad array of services that address specific needs

of the family, along with providing community

supervision.

In FY 2004-05, four programs were funded by

JJCPA after ROPP was suspended at the end of FY

2003-04 due to the low number of wards it

served, limited service area, and the high cost of

programming per participant. Youth who would

have been eligible for ROPP are now served by

Breaking Cycles and other programs.

Also in FY 2004-05, to adjust to changing costs of

services and reduced funding, contracts with

community-based organizations (CBOs) were

reduced for both Breaking Cycles and CAT, as

were funds to Juvenile Drug Court/PMSA and

Breaking Cycles for alcohol and drug treatment

and mental health services, which are provided by

the County of San Diego Health and Human

Services Agency (HHSA), primarily through

contracts.

In FY 2006-07, additional funds were received

mid-year and each program was able to make

one-time purchases based on its needs and to

enhance program services.

In FY 2007-08, the funds that were restored

during the prior year were used for enhancements

for all programs.

In FY 2008-09, the Parenting and Mentoring

components of the PMSA program and truancy

mediation services were discontinued, though

Substance Abuse Services (SAS) was maintained.

Additional unanticipated reductions in JJCPA

funding during the fiscal year resulted in a total

reduction of approximately 21 percent from the

prior fiscal year. Staffing and other reductions

were made in the programs and the TSP program

was continued with non-JJCPA funding.

In FY 2009-10, the funding allocated to the JJCPA

programs was 34 percent less than the previous

fiscal year, resulting in staffing cuts, limited

program capacity, and decreased service levels

across programs.

In FY 2010-11, JJCPA funding increased 20

percent but local funding that supported the

programs decreased.

In FY 2011-12, although overall JJCPA funding

increased by 5 percent, local funding that

supported the programs decreased by 51 percent.

In FY 2012-13, there was an increase to JJCPA

local funding and through one-time funding given

by the state. The additional money expanded

program services, restored the TSP program back

to the JJCPA evaluation, and added the Juvenile

Forensic Assistance for Stabilization and

Treatment (JFAST) program to the evaluation.

For FY 2013-14, there is a 7 percent decrease in

funding but all programming and services will

remain unchanged.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Before presenting research findings, this section

outlines the methodology used in the research

evaluation.

BASELINES REVISED TO ABSOLUTE GOALS

At the start of the evaluation, baseline groups

were randomly selected from the most comparable

pool of cases available for each JJCPA program at

the time (FY 2003-04 for SAS, FY 2001-02 for

Breaking Cycles, JDC, TSP, and CAT). However, in

FY 12-13, the program baselines were updated to

reflect “absolute goals”, which are five-year

averages calculated from previous program years.

This measure was already accepted by the BSCC

and is more appropriate because it reflects a

benchmark for comparison, rather than a figure

that changes year-to-year.


7

Just ice-Rela ted Outcome Measures

The JJCPA evaluation for San Diego County was

conducted by the Criminal Justice Research Division of

the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)

as part of the cross-site CSA evaluation for all JJCPA

programs across the state. A number of standardized

data elements were collected for JJCPA program

participants and baseline groups. Program participants

exiting each program during FY 2012-13 who did not

enter another JJCPA program served as the study

sample groups.4 For comparison purposes, baseline

groups were created to reflect an “absolute goal” for

the different measures based on the average

performance of prior years’ participants, as described

in each program section. These baseline groups were

selected because random assignment to the program

was not possible, equitable samples of non-program

participants were not available, and baseline measures

used previously were not consistent across the

programs and gave the perception that change should

be realized every year, when maintaining strong

performance could better describe the overall goal.

The CSA data elements, which were tracked during

the period of program participation, include:

number of arrests for a new criminal offense;

number of sustained petitions for new offenses;

number of probation violations;

number of institutional commitments;

completion of probation;

completion of restitution; and

completion of community service.

In addition, the SANDAG researchers also tracked a

number of outcomes which were of interest to local

leaders, including:

number of referrals to probation;

level and type of highest referral charge; and

level and type of highest sustained petition

charge.

4 Data for clients who were enrolled in more than one program during the fiscal year are included only in the higher program

based on the following hierarchy: CAT, TSP, SAS, Juvenile Drug Court, Breaking Cycles, and JFAST.

Risk Reduct ion Measure To examine changes in risk and protective factors over

time, the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup

(SDRRC) is used. This two-page, research-based

screening and assessment tool has been used across

systems (probation, law enforcement, schools, service

providers, etc.) in San Diego County since May 1998.

Over 20 community and county agency participants

commenced development of this universal, strength-

based assessment tool that was subsequently piloted

in the CAT program.

Note: Name has been changed to protect the client’s privacy.

CHANGING OUTLOOKS Gerardo entered the Reflections North Program

with a history of substance abuse, anger

problems, and family conflict. Shortly after entry

into the program, Gerardo began participating in

individual and family counseling sessions with

the onsite mental health intern. He was resistant

to counseling as he did not like talking to people

about personal issues. Furthermore, because of

the poor relationship he had with his mother, he

did not want to participate in counseling

together. However, he quickly felt comfortable

with the counselor and he and his mother

progressed well in the sessions. He soon started

applying some of the coping techniques he

learned to his life and was pleased with the

outcome. Gerardo performed well academically

and was recognized on multiple occasions for

having perfect attendance. He was seen as a

leader in the classroom and exuded maturity. He

obtained part-time employment at a local Italian

restaurant and because he really enjoyed the job

and his positive work ethic, his boss began

involving him in the catering aspect of the

business. Gerardo completed all the

requirements necessary to graduate from

Reflections; however, he and his mother wanted

to continue with the counseling sessions.

Gerardo transitioned to an Independent Studies

Program where he excelled. It was anticipated he

would graduate from high school within two

months of starting the program. Approximately

one month later, he completed the counseling

sessions and successfully graduated from

Reflections. At the time of this release, Gerardo

had aspirations of attending college in Arizona.


8

The SDRRC provides assessment information to

families and multi-disciplinary team members so they

can gain insight concerning areas of strength and risk.

Assessment results outside the average range provide

an alert to existing conditions that might indicate the

likelihood of delinquency problems. The assessment

also provides a framework for creating a service plan.

As part of this assessment, youth are rated on 30 risk

and 30 protective factors, each of which is grouped

into six dimensions: family, peer, individual, education,

delinquency, and substance use. Each factor can be

rated as “yes,” “somewhat,” or “no.” For the

analyses presented here, a client was rated as having a

risk factor if “yes” or “somewhat” was coded because

there still was room for improvement. Similarly, s/he

was categorized as having a protective factor only if

“yes” was coded. For the pre-post comparisons

analyses, data are presented only when an assessment

had been completed for that individual at both points

in time. Details of the SDRRC measurement and its

validity have been discussed elsewhere.5

Information from the SDRRC is collected for JJCPA

participants in CAT, Juvenile Drug Court, and Breaking

Cycles, and comparisons are made over time. From

July 1, 2001, to November 30, 2003, the SDRRC data

were entered into a Microsoft Access database by

program staff. Since December 1, 2003, program staff

has entered the SDRRCs into an online program that

was developed by Assessments.com. The first version

of the online assessment did not include a variable to

distinguish between the different types of assessments

(i.e., intake, exit, other, six-month); therefore, this

determination was made by SANDAG staff, who

matched intake and exit dates from another data file

to the date the SDRRC was completed and coded,

whether that assessment was an intake, exit, six-

month, or other type. The online SDRRC was changed

for FY 2004-05 and subsequent years to provide a

variable for assessment type. Assessments entered

online were used in the analysis for this report.

5 Additional information about the validity and reliability of the SDRRC can found in: Little, J. (no date). An Evaluation of the San Diego Risk and Resiliency Check Up. Boulder, CO: Social Science

Data Analysis Center, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. Turner, S., Fain, T., and Sehgal, A. (2005). Validation of the Risk and Resiliency Assessment Tool for

Juveniles in the Los Angeles County Probation System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.


When reviewing these results, it is important to note

that even though the staff from the programs who

administered this standardized instrument received

similar training and direction, variation in their

backgrounds or differences in who administered the

instrument could be related to variation in the results.

For example, staff from CBOs administered the

assessment to CAT clients, while probation officers

(POs) administered it to Juvenile Drug Court clients. In

addition, some staff did not finalize the SDRRC until

the client was engaged for over a month, so they may

have had more information than other programs

when the instrument was administered immediately at

intake.

OVERCOMING SETBACKS

Tommy was accepted into the Juvenile Drug

Court (JDC) Program due to his history of

marijuana abuse and poor behavior at

home. After being accepted into the program,

he enrolled into a Teen Recovery Center, but

relapsed into using marijuana. Scared that he

would be detained again for marijuana use, he

ran away from home for three months. He was

found and placed in Juvenile Hall where he could

meet with the Drug Court Therapist. After his

release, he re-enrolled in a Teen Recovery Center

at a traditional public high school, and began

meeting with his Juvenile Recovery Specialist on

a weekly basis for counseling services. Tommy’s

behavior at home improved and he completed

his substance abuse treatment after six months.

While maintaining his sobriety, he graduated

from JDC with future goals of graduating high

school and obtaining employment. He has

maintained contact with his Probation Officer

and Juvenile Recovery Specialist, who have

continued to encourage him to remain sober and

accomplish his goals. Tommy obtained

employment at a local amusement park and a

fast food restaurant, and in June 2013, he

graduated from a traditional public high school.

His former probation officer and Juvenile

Recovery Specialist were present with his family

to watch him graduate.


9

Other Measures

Project-specific outcome measures were collected that

relate to specific elements for each program. Data for

the CAT program include client satisfaction surveys

that were administered to both youth and parents as

they left the program (a post-test only convenience

sample). For Juvenile Drug Court and SAS, drug test

results were compiled for both program entry and exit

(a pre-test/post-test design). Client satisfaction

questionnaires also were administered to participants

in the SAS program (post-test only convenience

sample). Throughout the discussion of results,

significant differences are determined using the .05

threshold. That is, there is 95 percent confidence that

the results are not due to chance. All significant

differences are shown in Appendix Table A14.

PROGRAM OVERVIEWS AND EVALUATION RESULTS

The following section describes each of the JJCPA

programs and provides outcomes based on the

evaluation. All of the programs exceeded the target

number to be served in FY 2012-13 and displayed

positive results across the various outcome measures.

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT TEAMS (CAT)

Program Descr ipt ion

The Community Assessment Teams (CAT),

implemented in 1998, and Working to Insure and

Nurture Girls’ Success (WINGS), implemented in 1999,

represented two successful programs that were

community-based and family-oriented. Both utilized

multi-disciplinary teams to provide case management

to youth. The teams were comprised of case

managers, POs, alcohol and drug specialists, parent

educators, mental health professionals, school

representatives, and other specialists. While CAT

represented the prevention component, WINGS

provided gender-responsive intervention for juvenile

female wards of the court who had little or no prior

contact with the juvenile justice system. In July 2003,

the CAT and WINGS programs were integrated into

one blended program (now referred to solely as CAT),

creating an innovative and efficient program that

currently provides a broader array of services that

address the wide range of needs of the target

population.

The CAT program represents collaboration among the

San Diego County Probation Department and various

CBOs throughout the region. The County contracts

with community agencies to provide the services with

the agencies collaborating with POs assigned to the

regions. Five community-based agencies provide

services in the five regions: Central (Social Advocates

for Youth (SAY)); South Bay (South Bay Community

Services); North Coastal (North County Lifeline, Inc.);

North Inland (Mental Health Systems, Inc.); and East

County (San Diego Youth Services (SDYS)).

Youth are referred to the program primarily by

Probation, schools, law enforcement, community-

based agencies, and self-referral. Prevention and low-

level intervention services are provided to address

anger management problems, violence, alcohol and

other drug use, gang involvement, school problems,

and other anti-social behaviors, as well as many

additional issues. After a brief initial screening, the

youth and family may be referred directly to services

outside the program (direct connections), or a family

assessment is completed and the case manager works

with the youth and family to cooperatively develop a

case plan for increasing strengths and addressing

issues.

Through the WINGS component of the program,

gender-responsive services are provided to female

wards, as well as girls who are at risk of entering the

juvenile justice system. WINGS participants may

receive services for up to nine months, which include

intensive home visitation, family conflict mediation,

and girls’ groups. Gender-responsive services for both

males and females may be incorporated into non-

WINGS client case plans based upon assessed need.

The CAT program has been nationally honored. In

2004, it received the American Probation and Parole

Association’s Excellence in Community Crime

Prevention award. This award recognizes programs

that integrate community crime prevention initiatives

into traditional methods of supervision and

sanctioning offenders.


10

FY 2012-13 Program Changes

In FY 2012-2013, the CAT budget was increased

which enhanced programming and services for all

youth throughout the region. Agencies were able to

hire more staff and add more groups which resulted in

increased counseling options for youth and their

families. Different types of therapeutic groups were

offered throughout the region such as self-injury/self-

harm, multi-family group, and a school transition

group. The additional funding allowed the agencies to

allocate money for any service gaps and enhance flex

funding opportunities such as pro-social activities, field

excursions, and incentives. The agencies were also

able to offer a variety of special events throughout the

year to address both client and community needs.

Examples of these events were: motivational speakers,

community service, and community resource fairs.

There were no changes in the population that the CAT

program serves. Youth and family services continued

to be the CAT program’s primary focus while

providing quality services. The program continued to

explore new opportunities to enhance services for the

youth and community.

Research Overv iew

The CAT program objective is to receive an average of

5,200 referrals each year from the target population

of at-risk youth and their families residing in San Diego

County. Between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, the

program received 5,510 referrals. Of those, it was

determined that 3,424 could be served most

effectively by directly connecting them with services

outside of the CAT program. The remaining youth

were assessed to be served in the CAT program and

received case management, either short-term (less

than 3 months; 1,768 youth) or long-term (3 to 9

months; 243 youth), for a total of 2,011 program

entries in FY 2012-13. Of these entries, 75 clients

participated in WINGS.


To determine the effectiveness of the program,

outcomes for the CAT sample are compared to a

baseline group. The baseline group consists of 9,829

prior CAT participants from FY 2005-06 through FY

2010-11.

The FY 2012-13 CAT sample includes 1,557 case-

managed youth (37 WINGS, 208 long-term, and 1,312

short-term) who exited the program between

July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, regardless of when

they entered.

REDIRECTING THE FUTURE

Jenny was referred to the CAT program after

being put on probation for shoplifting. Before

her referral, she was involved in increasingly risky

and unhealthy behavior, including being in a

physically abusive relationship and running away

from home. Jenny showed a lot of potential as

she quickly realized that her new friends were

the “wrong crowd”. While on probation, Jenny

completed her community service hours as well

as anti-theft and reducing the Risk sexual health

classes. She also liked the WINGS program as she

felt free to express her thoughts without being

judged and learned valuable advice from her

peers. Jenny regards her time on probation as a

learning experience and has created goals to

make better choices and avoid future legal

troubles. Rebuilding her relationship with her

father is now an important part of her life.

Additionally, Jenny spends more time at home

and has stopped hanging out with peers she felt

were a negative influence. After graduating high

school, she plans to eventually attend a well-

known four-year university and become a

teacher or social worker so that she can help

others.


11


Appendix Table A1 presents program outcomes,

including information regarding clients’ criminal

activity during program participation for both the CAT

sample and baseline. In order to ensure comparability

between the two groups, statistics related to criminal

activity were tracked for the first 90 days of the

program, or through the end of the program if less

than 90 days. In addition, data from program

satisfaction surveys completed by clients and their

parents/guardians are shown in Appendix Tables A2

and A3, and SDRRC results (which were administered

at intake and exit) are presented in Appendix

Table A14.

Sample Descr ipt ions

Of the 1,557 cases in the CAT sample, 63 percent

were Hispanic, 18 percent were White, 10 percent

were Black, 7 percent were other ethnicities, and 2

percent were Asian/Pacific Islander (Figure 1). The CAT

baseline group had a similar breakdown of

race/ethnicities. The average (mean) age of CAT

participants was 12.8 years (SD = 3.3, range 4 to 19),

younger than the baseline sample (13.2 years, SD =

1.1, range 4 to 18). There was no significant

difference between the two groups with respect to

gender, with males accounting for 56 percent of the

CAT sample, compared to 55 percent of the baseline

group (not shown).

With respect to duration of time spent in the program,

sample youth received services the same period

(median6 86 days, range 10 to 2767) compared to

baseline youth (median 86 days, range 1 to 1,127)

(Appendix Table A4).

As shown in Table 2 (and the appendix tables

previously noted), clients who exited CAT in FY 2012-

13 demonstrated positive change. Specifically, clients

had little contact with the juvenile justice system; a

growth in resiliency, as measured by the standardized

assessment; and positive feedback about the program.

6 The median is a more appropriate measure of central tendency than the mean because the data are skewed.

7 Partner agencies request extended services beyond the 270 days

for youth when needed to ensure successful completion of their case plan.

DEVELOPING A POSITIVE SUPPORT SYSTEM

Manny was referred to the CAT Program for a

recent arrest for vandalism. Upon intake into the

program, he possessed a history of substance use,

family history of arrests, lack of healthy coping

skills and poor peer relationships. Through the

program, Manny and his mother participated in

over 15 counseling sessions and received case

management support. He was also involved in a

positive choices group. During his time in

services, Manny began playing football and

developed an increased sense of self-confidence.

He was able to use football as a healthy coping

skill and as a means to increase his exposure to

positive peer influences while minimizing his

time on the streets engaging in delinquent

activities. The CAT Program also helped to

provide monthly bus passes in order to support

him in getting to and from school, practice, and

support services while the CAT staff worked with

his mother on increasing her financial stability.

Manny also completed community service and

wrote a heart-felt, descriptive essay related to his

offense, personal history, and future goals.

Manny was able to successfully complete all of

his service plan goals and was successfully

diverted from further involvement in the juvenile

justice system.


12

FIGURE 1 CAT SAMPLE AND BASELINE GROUP ETHNICITY

NOTE: Cases with missing information not included.

SOURCE: CAT Client Data, Probation Compliance Exit Form

TABLE 2 CAT EVALUATION HIGHLIGHTS – FY 2012-13

Across the outcome measures, the FY 12-13 CAT sample exceeded the baseline on 7 measures and met the goals on

13 measures.

After participation, CAT clients had significantly improved resiliency scores (3.3 to 9.4), indicating increased

protective factors and reduced risk.

CAT client knowledge and use of available resources increased significantly after program participation, with 46

percent knowing about at least one service at intake, compared to 85 percent at exit, and 32 percent using those

resources at intake, compared to 76 percent at exit. Parents/guardians also significantly increased their knowledge

(42% to 98%) and use (36% to 96%) of community resources.

After receiving services, a significantly higher percentage of CAT clients reported they were regularly attending

school (88% at intake to 95% at exit). In addition, clients reported significant improvement in school (64% doing

“well” or “very well” at intake, compared to 94% at exit) and their attitudes about school improved significantly on

average, with 60 percent saying they “liked it” or “liked it a lot” at intake, compared to 83 percent at exit. They also

reported significant improvement in their ability to handle problems with others well (63% answering “sometimes”

or “always” at intake compared to 93% at exit).

Parents/guardians of CAT youth also reported significant improvement at exit compared to intake in regard to how

their child was doing in school (43% “well” or “very well” at intake, compared to 88% at exit), feeling their child’s

friends were a positive influence (53% to 89% choosing “somewhat” or “mostly”), and family communication

(51% to 92% choosing “well” or “very well”).

The majority of clients (87%) and parents/guardians (98%) said they would refer a friend to the program and 97

percent of clients and parents/guardians reported being satisfied with the services they received.

SOURCES: Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records, Probation Compliance Exit Form, San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup, and CAT Youth and Parent/Guardian Satisfaction Questionnaires


13

TRUANCY SUPERVISION PROGRAM


The Truancy Supervision Program (TSP) is a

collaborative effort between the Juvenile Court, the

District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department,

the County Office of Education, and various school

districts across the county. It is an expansion of the

Truancy Intervention Program (TIP), which began in

1988, in which Deputy Probation Officers

(DPOs) were assigned to six school districts to provide

prevention and early intervention services.

Beginning July 1, 2001, JJCPA funds were used to

augment TIP by adding DPOs and Correctional Deputy

Probation Officers (CDPOs) to provide intensive

supervision and case management services for youth

who were made wards of the court (601 wards) due

to non-criminal, truancy, and out-of-control behavior.

Initially known as the Truancy Suppression Project, the

name was changed in FY 2003-04 to better reflect the

services provided by the program.

As part of TSP, POs provide intensive probation

supervision throughout the entire San Diego region,

make referrals for truancy prevention and academic

enhancement services, and assist in monitoring the

juvenile’s attendance through direct contact with the

truant juvenile and his/her family. In addition, TSP POs

conduct in-service training, provide crisis intervention,

work with collaborative partners, and provide

alternatives to confinement. TSP POs are mobile,

which allows them to make home and school visits, as

needed. The program has been recognized nationally,

receiving the National Association of Counties award

in 2003 for its innovative approach in dealing with

truancy, resulting in significant improvement in school

attendance and grades.



TSP experienced some program modifications this past

fiscal year. Due to funding cuts, the truancy court now

also handles truancy diversion cases, which are

different in that they do not have to be issued with a

court order as done in supervision cases. This was a

positive change because it saved TSP from being

terminated. However, this change presented

challenges, including a decrease from 6 to 4 TSP

probation officers, resulting in less staff available to

serve youth. Additionally, TSP participants are no

longer limited to youth with truancy issues, but now

FINDING THE BEST SOLUTION

Katy suffered from depression and low self-

esteem, which manifested into poor school

performance and attendance. TSP POs worked

with Katy and her school to make adjustments

in her schedule. She was placed in the Learning

Center program where she was able to work

independently in a smaller class setting. Katy

showed some progress, but she was unable to

sustain academic success. During this time, Katy

was also receiving individual and family therapy.

She started participating in a gym and joined a

soccer team, but continued to struggle

academically. In working with Katy, her family

and the school, it was decided to place her at a

continuation school, with a small campus and

caring staff. Katy found success at this school

site; she was smiling at school and was able to

earn credits at an accelerated rate, which

allowed her graduate on time. She is now a full

time student at a local community college with

a goal of transferring to a four-year university

to earn a degree in Zoology.


14

include youth in diversion who struggle with

substance use issues. This change poses a challenge to

POs who are unable to complete urinalysis testing on

diversion youth and have limited sanctions to impose

when a youth is noncompliant. TSP staff also

experienced difficulty in finding low-cost and

accessible programs for diverted youth because of the

program’s preference to not place TSP youth with

more criminally advanced youth. Despite these

challenges, TSP staff found creative solutions such as

having TSP POs meet weekly with the truancy

diversion court judge and District Attorney to present

youth cases. Officers have also been referring youth to

local CBOs to access programming that assist with

substance abuse issues, family problems, teen

pregnancy, and gang involvement.

Research Overv iew

For the period July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013,

the target population for TSP was 200 youth from the

truancy diversion court who resided throughout the

county. During the fiscal year, 298 juveniles began or

continued to be served by the TSP program. The FY

2012-13 client sample includes the 136 clients who

exited TSP during the fiscal year, regardless of when

they entered. For comparison purposes, baseline

groups were created to reflect a “baseline” for the

different measures based on the average performance

of prior years’ participants. The TSP baseline group

consists of 1,174 wards referred to Probation for

truancy from FY 2004-05 through FY 2009-10 and

were selected because random assignment was not

possible and baseline measures used previously gave

the perception that change should be realized every

year, when maintaining strong performance could

better describe the overall goal. Information regarding

criminal activity and completion of probation

obligations is presented in Appendix Table A5 for both

groups. Statistics related to criminal activity were

tracked for the first 120 days of the program or

through the end of the program if less than 120 days.

Data on school performance and attendance were

collected for the TSP sample at intake and exit and

comparisons were made over time. The results of

these analyses are included in Appendix Table A6.

SDRRC results (which were administered at intake and

exit) are presented in Appendix Table A14.


As Figure 2 shows, the ethnic composition of the FY

2012-13 TSP sample and baseline groups was similar,

with one exception: a significantly greater percent of

youth were Hispanic in the TSP sample (81%)

compared to the baseline (71%). The groups were

similar on other demographic measures, including

average (mean) age (14.5 years, SD = 2.5, range 11 to

17 for sample and 14.9 years, SD = 1.1, range 11 to

17 for baseline) and gender (51% male for the sample

and 49% male for the baseline) (not shown).

The length of time in the program was similar for both

TSP samples (median8 294 days, range 18 to 1,155)

and baseline groups (median 319 days, range 3 to

1,541). Time in the program beyond 365 days was

due to commitment extensions.

Outcomes

Clients who exited TSP in FY 2012-13 demonstrated

positive change, as measured by less contact with the

juvenile justice system, greater compliance with court

orders, and increased average resiliency score over

time (Table 3 and appendix tables previously noted).



15

FIGURE 2 TSP SAMPLE AND BASELINE GROUP ETHNICITY

*Significant at p<.05. NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. SOURCE: Probation Compliance Exit Form

TABLE 3 TRUANCY SUPERVISION PROGRAM EVALUATION HIGHLIGHTS – FY 2012-13

Across the outcome measures, the FY 12-13 TSP sample exceeded the baseline on 13 measures, met the goals on 6

measures, and was below the goals on 2 measures.

After program participation, 100 percent of program participants had no expulsions, nearly all (97%) had no

suspensions, and four out of five (80%) were at or above grade level.

The average GPA for program participants increased significantly from .94 at program entry to 1.24 at exit.

TSP clients had improved resiliency scores after program participation (-7.9 to -5.9).

SOURCES: Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) Records, Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records, and San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup

71%

16%

6% 2%

5%

81%

10% 4% 2% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic* White Black Asian/PacificIslander

Other

Baseline (n=1,174) TSP Sample (n=136)


16

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES (SAS)


In contrast to the Juvenile Drug Court program, which

will be described in the next section, Substance Abuse

Services (SAS) was designed for youth with no prior

substance abuse treatment experience. In FY 2003-04,

JJCPA funds previously allocated to the CAT program

for the provision of substance abuse services were

separated out from that program to provide these

same services via a stand-alone contract with a new

service provider in what became known as SAS.9

Juvenile Recovery Specialists (JRS) provide case

management, regular drug testing, and referral

services through the contractor, Vista Hill. Clients with

less severe substance abuse issues submit to a drug

test three times per month as long as they are able to

stay clean at this lower level of supervision. Clients

with a higher level of need are enrolled in a treatment

program that includes more probation supervision, as

well as classes related to substance use. These clients

are tested two times per month by Probation, in

addition to the testing services provided by the

treatment program.


In FY 2012-2013, SAS received a budget increase that

allowed the program to hire five additional JRS. Hiring

additional staff allowed SAS to provide adequate case

management and better address community needs

throughout the San Diego region. Specifically, the JRS

were able to assist dual diagnosis youth (youth that

have both mental health and drug use issues) by

creating individualized goals for the youth to stay

sober, attending specialized classes for issues the

youth were dealing with (e.g. anger management or

anti-theft), and referring these youth to treatment

facilities that specialize in co-occurring issues.

Since FY 11-12, the SAS program has seen an increase

in youth who have learning disabilities or co-occurring

9 SAS was initially one component of the PMSA program, which also included parenting and mentoring services. As mentioned

previously, the parenting and mentoring components were eliminated in FY 2008-09.

issues or lack parental support. Having the additional

staff has helped the SAS program increase contact

with the youth and their families. They also are able to

work closely with the schools and provide additional

resources such as the Juvenile Court Clinic10 and

Access Crisis Line11.

Despite the increase in youth with dual diagnosis, the

on-going collaboration and communication between

the probation officers, JRS, and community partners

has been essential in helping these youth.


10 The Juvenile Court Clinic provides youth with medication necessary for stabilization and connects them with a variety of services for mental health and family support. 11 The Access and Crisis Line provides services such as suicide prevention and crisis intervention, and connects clients to mental health and substance programs.

FINDING SOBRIETY

Ricky came to the SAS program struggling with

substance abuse issues. He continued to test

positive while in the SAS program and was

referred to a 21-day detoxification program for

forced sobriety and substance abuse education

classes. Upon successful completion of the detox

program, there was a complete change in his

attitude toward both his sobriety and his

outlook on probation. After Ricky successfully

completed the program, he registered for

classes at Mesa Community College. He also

completed all of his court ordered requirements

and completed the SAS program with six

months of sobriety. Ricky is being successfully

terminated from probation this year. Ricky

believes the program has taught him to be

responsible and recognize what is important in

life. He wants to continue to stay sober as he

has seen a positive change in school, his

relationship with his mother, and his ability to

play football.


17

Research Overv iew

The target population from July 1, 2012, to June 30,

2013, for SAS was 400 wards of the court. In FY

2012-13, 1,116 wards began or continued receiving

program services, regardless of whether they exited by

the end of the year.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the SAS sample

consists of 364 youth who exited the program in FY

2012-13. Outcome measures for SAS include data on

criminal activity and completion of program

obligations (Appendix Table A7), presence of positive

drug tests (Appendix Table A8), and a client

satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ) administered at

program exit (Appendix Table A9). For comparison

purposes, baseline groups were created to reflect a

“baseline” for the different measures based on the

average performance of prior years’ participants. The

SAS baseline group consists of 2,045 wards previously

referred the SAS program from FY 2005-06 through

FY 2010-11. Criminal activity statistics for SAS clients

were tracked for the first 240 days of the program, or

through the end of the program if less than 240 days.


Around four in five of both the SAS sample (87%) and

baseline (85%) were male (not shown) and around

half of both groups (56% and 49%, respectively) were

Hispanic (Figure 3). The average (mean) client age for

the SAS sample was 16.6 years (SD = 1.2, range 12 to

19), compared to 16.4 years (SD = 1.2, range 11 to

19) for the baseline group (not shown). None of the

age group differences were significant. However, as

Figure 3 shows, there were significant differences

between the sample and baseline in regards to

race/ethnicity. There were significantly more Hispanics

(56%) in the current sample compared to the baseline

(49%), while there were significantly less Whites

(27%) in the current sample compared to the baseline

(33%).

The average length of time in the program was longer

for the baseline group (median12 181 days, range 15

to 1,382) compared to the sample (136 days, range 2

to 370) (not shown).

Outcomes

As shown in Table 4 (and appendix tables previously

noted), clients who exited SAS in FY 2012-13

demonstrated positive change, as measured by less

contact with the juvenile justice system, greater

compliance with court orders, fewer positive drug test

results, and positive feedback from the clients

themselves.



18

FIGURE 3 SAS SAMPLE AND BASELINE GROUP ETHNICITY

NOTE: Cases with missing information not included. SOURCE: Probation Compliance Exit Form

TABLE 4 SAS EVALUATION HIGHLIGHTS – FY 2012-13

Across the outcome measures, the FY 12-13 SAS sample exceeded the baseline on 10 measures, met the goals on 7

measures, and was below the goals on 6 measures.

Within the SAS sample, the percent of clients with a positive drug test decreased over time from 65 percent at

program intake to 37 percent at exit.

The majority of SAS clients felt that program staff members’ expectations were clear (93%), staff treated them with

respect (93%), staff was concerned about their well-being (90%), and they had a good relationship with the JRS

(85%).

SOURCES: Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records, Substance Abuse Services Drug Test Results, SAS Client Satisfaction Questionnaire

49%

33%

13%

1% 3%

56%

27%

13%

1% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic* White* Black Asian/PacificIslander

Other

Baseline (n=2,045) SAS Sample (n=338)


19

JUVENILE DRUG COURT


The Juvenile Drug Court (JDC), a partnership between

the Juvenile Court, the Public Defender, the District

Attorney, treatment providers, police departments, the

Sheriff’s Department, and Probation is part of the

continuum of services for wards with substance abuse

issues. JJCPA funds initially were used to replace

expiring grants effective July 1, 2001, and to augment

the four-phase program by adding a fifth Juvenile

Drug Court session. Juveniles who have been non-

compliant in drug treatment and who need increased

monitoring and supervision by the court while living in

the community are ordered into this program, which

was designed initially to last 12 months.

The program goal is to help youth eliminate

dependency/addiction and achieve sobriety through

day treatment. Program elements include frequent

JDC appearances, outpatient services, intensive

supervision, frequent drug testing, peer group

support, rewards and praise for compliant behavior,

and immediate consequences/sanctions (e.g.,

institutional commitments) for non-compliant

behavior. Non-compliant events include testing

positive for alcohol or other drugs, failing to attend

treatment, refusing to participate in treatment, or not

attending school.


CORRECTING MISTAKES

Mark was accepted into the JDC program for

alcohol abuse and poor behavior at home and

school. Prior to participating in the program, he

drank alcohol on a daily basis and sought

treatment after an incident where he “blacked

out” at a party and woke up beaten in a

hospital. Upon acceptance into the program, he

enrolled in an outpatient Teen Recovery Center

and attended three times a week. He also

enrolled in a charter school to attempt to make

up for his academic deficiencies, but continued

to miss class and assignments. With

encouragement from his teacher and JRS, he

began to attend school more often and

complete his schoolwork. His grades improved

and for the first time, he made the Honor Roll-

an accomplishment he continued the following

semester. His achieved goals in school and

treatment helped him reconsider his priorities.

He completed his program and graduated

without any sanctions. Since graduating from

JDC, he has maintained contact with his JRS and

remains clean and sober. Mark attended the

annual JDC Graduation and provided the

following quote for a graduate display: “As the

people on Earth, we never stop growing. It is in

our divine nature that we make mistakes, a

natural challenge that defines our capabilities,

and mistakes that help discover who we really

are.”


20

Upon entry into JDC, a JRS assigned to the Substance

Abuse/JDC Unit refers the minor to a substance abuse

treatment program in his/her neighborhood.

Substance abuse treatment providers report on the

minor’s progress to the JRS. In addition, the JRS

conducts field visits and drug testing at the schools

and homes of JDC clients. On a weekly basis, the PO

provides case management and a client progress

report to the court on community, school, and family

issues. Before each JDC session, the JDC Team reviews

each minor’s progress, including treatment and his/her

behavior in the community and at home. Clean and

sober, law-abiding behavior is required for program

graduation.

Youth who successfully complete JDC are honored in

a graduation ceremony, held annually in the summer.

These graduations are supported by the community

through donations for gifts to the youth and by

representation from elected officials. The graduates

serve as examples to other clients through their

successful completion and accomplishment of goals,

such as being accepted to college, receiving awards

for academic achievement, or finding a job.

In FY 2004-05, the JDC program design was modified

to become a three-phase program lasting nine

months, instead of a twelve-month, four-phase

program. This change utilized JDC best practices, as

adolescents can focus more easily on the shorter time

periods and to follow through with short-term goals.

An aftercare component was added as part of phase

three, during which clients prepare to graduate from

the program and transition off probation. The

eligibility requirements for JDC also were revised,

allowing for a larger group of probationers to be

screened.

Specifically, while eligible clients must have been non-

compliant in a substance abuse treatment program,

this situation could have happened in school or a

private treatment setting, and not necessarily while

the youth was on probation. This policy allows JDC to

screen probationers who may have a high level of

need though they have not been wards of the court

previously. It also allows Probation staff to intervene

before the client reaches a higher level of substance

abuse and delinquency. Another change in the

eligibility criteria was to accept clients with co-

occurring disorders. There also is more leniency in the

screening process, with cases being reviewed on an

individual basis. For example, while clients with any

history of arson or violent offenses previously were not

admitted to JDC, the program now has the option to

request a psychological evaluation as part of the JDC

screening for clients with histories of arson (over two

years prior) or less serious violent offenses for possible

inclusion in the program. Finally, some of the out-of-

home placement options utilized by the program

changed over time as well.


With additional funding, JDC was able to hire more

staff and to supplement program components.

Specifically, a JRS and a Probation Aide were hired

since both positions had been vacant for several

months. In addition, a part-time therapist position was

added which allowed more hours for counseling

youth. JDC also added a 28-day, in-custody

therapeutic component to its programming, in which

youth stayed at Juvenile Hall to participate in either

individual or group sessions facilitated by the JDC

therapist. After the 28-day program, the therapist

assessed whether the participants needed further

therapeutic services. Implementing this component

provided another option to the JDC team for treating

noncompliant youth. Lastly, the number of graduates

at the annual JDC graduation ceremony increased due

in part to providing clients transportation to the event.

One challenge the JDC program experienced this past

fiscal year was the emergence of a new designer drug,

called “N-bomb” that was being used by some of the

participants, but could not be detected in urine

analysis exams. The JDC team has been in contact

with the drug testing laboratory regarding this

challenge and they are exploring different avenues

regarding testing.

Despite the emergence of a new designer drug being

used by clients, the JDC program still encouraged

youth for program success. Stony Knoll Youth

Services, a non-profit organization through the JDC’s

Public Defender, continues to raise money to help

disadvantaged youth that are participating in the JDC

program or have graduated to participate in

community service projects in other countries. These

trips allow the youth to meet and reside with

community members in different foreign countries.

This past fiscal year, ten JDC youth were selected to

go to China.


21

Research Overv iew

The target population for July 1, 2012, to June 30,

2013, for Juvenile Drug Court was 120 non-violent,

first- or second-time wards of the court with

substance abuse problems. A total of 229 youth

began or continued receiving Juvenile Drug Court

services during FY 2012-13.

The Juvenile Drug Court sample described here

includes 69 cases exiting the program in FY 2012-13,

regardless of when they entered. The Juvenile Drug

Court baseline group is based on data collection from

of 536 prior participants from FY 2006-07 through

2010-11. Information regarding criminal activity and

completion of probation obligations during the period

of program participation was tracked as part of the

evaluation and is presented in Appendix Table A10.

Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for

the first 240 days of the program, or through the end

of the program if less than 240 days. In addition, drug

test results were analyzed as a measure of program

success and are presented in Appendix Table A11, and

risk and resiliency assessment information for the

sample was collected and is presented in Appendix

Table A14. When interpreting the drug test results, it

is important to note that Juvenile Drug Court serves a

challenging target population and that initial failures

do not result in immediate termination, which is

consistent with the philosophy that relapse is part of

recovery. Thus, during initial phases of the program,

the participant may have several positive drug tests

but can remain in the program if s/he continues to

make efforts to change.


There were no significant demographic differences

between the Juvenile Drug Court sample and baseline,

indicating that the groups are similar on these

measures. More than three out of four youth in the

Juvenile Drug Court sample (83%) and baseline

(85%) were male and more than half of both groups

were Hispanic (62% of the sample and 51% of the

baseline) (Figure 4). The average (mean) client age for

the Juvenile Drug Court sample was 16.2 years (SD =

0.86, range 13 to 17), compared to 16.0 years (SD =

0.85, range 13 to 18) for the baseline. The length of

time in the program was shorter for the Juvenile Drug

Court sample compared to the baseline group

(median13 322 days, range 11 to 80914, compared to

median 369 days, range 20 to 1110) (not shown).

Outcomes

Outcomes from the Probation Compliance Exit Form

and SDRRC, as well as drug test results, indicate that

Juvenile Drug Court clients improved during their time

in the program. More specifically, Table 5 and the

aforementioned appendix tables detail these positive

achievements.


14 Clients in the program beyond 240 days were due to program

extensions.


22

FIGURE 4 JDC SAMPLE AND BASELINE GROUP ETHNICITY

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. SOURCE: Probation Compliance Exit Form

TABLE 5 JUVENILE DRUG COURT EVALUATION HIGHLIGHTS – FY 2012-13

Across the outcome measures, the FY 12-13 JDC sample exceeded the baseline on 15 measures and was below the

goals on 7 measures.

Overall, the average resiliency score of the JDC youth showed significant positive change over time, with an increase

of 7.0 between intake and exit (-14.1 to -7.0). Changes in resiliency scores have been noted in the crime prevention

literature as valuable predictors of recidivism.15

Sixty-one percent (61%) of JDC clients had a positive drug test during the three months prior to program entry, which

decreased by three times compared to the three months prior to program exit (20%).

SOURCES: Probation Compliance Exit Form, San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup, and Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records

15 Turner, S., Fain, T., and Sehgal, A. (2005). Validation of the Risk and Resiliency Assessment Tool for Juveniles in the Los Angeles County Probation System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

51%

33%

12%

2% 2%

62%

32%

6% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic White Black Asian/Pacific Islander Other

Baseline (n=536) Drug Court Sample (n=69)


23

BREAKING CYCLES


Breaking Cycles is a graduated response16 program

designed to serve approximately 500 high-risk youth,

ages 12 to 18, on any given day. Youth are committed

to Breaking Cycles by the Juvenile Court for a period

of 150, 240, or 365 days. A multi-disciplinary team

assessment process is used to review risk and needs

and to develop a comprehensive case plan in response

to the risks and needs assessed. Parents/caregivers and

other family members are encouraged to participate in

all aspects of the program, including parent support

groups to ensure the client is successful. Utilizing a

team approach with the probation officer as the lead,

Breaking Cycles provides a seamless continuum of

services and graduated responses, with the ability to

move the probationer up or down the continuum

without returning to Juvenile Court, provided there is

no new arrest.

This continuum of services assists in the transition

from custody to the community and from program to

program, thereby ensuring greater success for the

youth in maintaining a crime-free and drug-free

lifestyle. The Breaking Cycles umbrella of services

includes assessment and reassessment teams, alcohol

and drug treatment, mental health services, individual

and family counseling, community supervision, case

management, and the following programming

options:

Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) (custody programs for

boys);

Girls’ Rehabilitation Facility (GRF) (custody

programs for girls);

Youth Day Center-Central (YDCC) (day treatment

as a step-down from or an alternative to custody,

with a focus on family-centered services);

Reflections Central day treatment program (a

MediCal-certified site focusing on mental health

and family issues, which provides day treatment as

a step-down from custody or an alternative to an

16 Originally known as a graduated sanctions program the term was changed to graduated response to reflect current language used in evidenced base practices and state legislation proposals.

out-of-home placement in a Residential Treatment

Facility);

North County YDC (day treatment as a step-down

from or alternative to custody, with a focus on

family-centered services);

North County Reflections day treatment program

(day treatment as a step-down from custody or an

alternative to an out-of-home placement in a

Residential Treatment Facility, with a focus on

mental health and family issues); and

Community Unit (an intensive, community-based,

multiagency supervision and treatment program).

The JJCPA allocation replaced Challenge I grant funds

that expired in June 2001. The JJCPA funds were

utilized to retain and augment program staff and

services. Adding staff to the program resulted in a

significant increase in the number of interventions,

such as alcohol and drug-abuse counseling and

treatment, individual and family counseling,

mentoring, tutoring, vocational training, crisis

intervention, conflict resolution, and life skills training.


In FY 2012-13, Breaking Cycles received additional

funding to help improve services and staffing for

youth and their families. Specifically, Reflections

Central was able to add additional student positions to

their program to serve more youth and

YDC/Reflections North implemented a point-based

system so students were able to take ownership of

when they graduate. YDC/Reflections North also

started a 6-week Spanish parenting class to provide

assistance with enhancing parenting skills for the

youth on Probation. However, due to budget cuts at

the school district level, two classrooms had to be

scaled down to one at the YDCC site.

In addition, Breaking Cycles had several major staffing

changes. Case managers were reclassified to the

original position of youth and families counselors, an

important change because staff can now provide

counseling and therapeutic services to youth and their

families. Additionally, the parent advocate position

was filled after several years of vacancy caused by lack

of funding for the position. Two (2) Correction Deputy


24

Probation Officers (CDPO) were added to the program

and undertook duties as community family monitors

to support youth and families across the region. A

Senior Probation Officer (SRO) was reclassified to a

Supervising Probation Officer (SPO) to provide more

comprehensive support to the regionalized

Community Unit teams . Lastly, a SPO was promoted

to Director resulting in the need for a SPO position to

be filled. Counselors and interns also came on board

to help with counseling needs and a psychiatrist

provided medication management services.

The Breaking Cycles program continued their strong

collaborative partnerships and worked diligently to

ensure youth and families received support this past

fiscal year. Additional support groups were added and

youth also participated in community sporting events

and field trips.

Research Overv iew

On an annual basis, Breaking Cycles targets 1,200

medium- to high-risk wards of the court, ages 12 to

18, who are committed to the program by the Juvenile

Court, along with their siblings and families. All areas

of the County are served. Between July 1, 2012, and

June 30, 2013, 1,160 juveniles began or continued

serving a Breaking Cycles commitment. Of the

Breaking Cycles youth, 420 exited during FY 2012-13

and were tracked as part of this evaluation effort. The

baseline group for this program was comprised of a

data collected on 2,840 juveniles who were

committed to Breaking Cycles between FY 2006-07

through 2010-11.

Criminal activity information was collected for both

groups for the first 240 days of program participation,

or through the end of the program if less than 240

days, and information regarding completion of

probation obligations was provided by program staff

(Appendix Table A12). In addition, SDRRC data were

analyzed for the current sample (Appendix Table A14).


DEDICATED TO CHANGE

Sam was committed to Breaking Cycles for

carrying a knife. Upon entering the program, he

associated with gang members and was

consequently under the supervision of the Gang

Unit. He was ambivalent about his involvement

and the desire to maintain this lifestyle. He

struggled to self-manage his impulsive behavior;

which impeded his academic performance. Sam

was open about his struggles and began

reaching out for help.

Through the program, he met with a boys group

in the community and they discussed issues

including gangs and anger management. Sam

agreed to have his gang-related tattoos

removed, which served as the beginning of his

commitment to change his lifestyle. Several

months into the program, Sam’s mother was

deported. He never missed one day of school

during this time and continued to stay upbeat

and focused on his goals. Once Probation

learned about his mother’s status, Sam disclosed

that he thought about “running away and

giving up” but opted not to repeat old habits

that got him into trouble. He put a lot of faith

in the Officer working with him and was able to

be placed with his adult sister. This stressful

period did not derail Sam’s motivation to

succeed. Four months later, Sam’s mother was

allowed back into the country and the family

moved to a home to establish a new beginning

together. After a year in the program, Sam

successfully completed his probation. He is

attending Independent Studies, meets with his

psychiatrist, and continues to take medication to

address his ADHD. Johnny stated he was

grateful for the support he received while on

probation. He believed that without the

support, he would not have accomplished the

goals he set for himself. Today, Sam reports that

he is enjoying his new life without gang

involvement.


25



As Figure 5 shows, the ethnic composition of the FY

2012-13 Breaking Cycles sample and baseline groups

was similar, with two exceptions: a significantly

greater percent of Black youth in the Breaking Cycles

baseline (21%) compared to the sample (15%) and a

greater percent of Hispanic youth in the current

sample (63%) compared to the baseline (54%). The

groups were the same on other demographic

measures, including average (mean) age (15.8 years,

SD = 0.96, range 12 to 17 for sample and 15.8 years,

SD = 0.91, range 12 to 18 for baseline) and gender

(79% male for the sample and 79% male for the

baseline) (not shown).

The length of time in the program was similar for both

the Breaking Cycles sample (median17 238 days, range

22 to 552) and baseline groups (median 238 days,

range 17 to 734). Time in the program beyond 365

days was due to commitment extensions.

Outcomes

Clients who exited Breaking Cycles in FY 2012-13

demonstrated positive change, as measured by less

contact with the juvenile justice system, greater

compliance with court orders, and increased average

resiliency score over time (Table 5 and appendix tables

previously noted).


MAKING BETTER CHOICES

Maria was caught transporting drugs across the

border after being recruited by a friend. She

was an exceptional and well-behaved student

until she was in a gymnastic accident and

suffered permanent paralysis on one side of her

face. She got through this, but started hanging

out with the wrong people with the intent of

"being cool". She was committed to Breaking

Cycles after the girls at the Girls’ Rehabilitation

Facility petitioned for her release. In the

program, Maria attended a girls’ group, and

focused on rebuilding trust with her parents.

She also set goals to improve family

communication and build her confidence so she

could have a voice and set limits with her peers.

With time, she incorporated back into a regular

high school, reunited with her positive friends,

and joined the soccer team. She continues to

participate in local church youth groups and

works hard in school. Maria believes she turned

her life around was able to get back on track

largely due to the amount of support she was

able to receive.


26

FIGURE 5 BREAKING CYCLES SAMPLE AND BASELINE GROUP ETHNICITY

*Significant at p<.05.

SOURCE: Probation Compliance Exit Form

TABLE 6 BREAKING CYCLES EVALUATION HIGHLIGHTS – FY 2012-13

Across the outcome measures, the FY 12-13 Breaking Cycles sample exceeded the baseline on 13 measures, met the

baseline on 6 measures, and was below the goals on 3 measures.

On average, Breaking Cycles clients had statistically significantly higher resiliency scores at program exit (-17.5)

compared to intake (-16.1).

Similar to the baseline, less than 1 in 5 Breaking Cycles participants were arrested. Additionally, only 13 percent had a

referral of any types, 8 percent had a sustained petition and only 4 percent had an institutional commitment.

SOURCES: Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) Records, Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records, and San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup

54%

19% 21%

3% 3%

63%

16% 15%

1% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic* White Black* Asian/PacificIslander

Other

Baseline (n=2,840) Breaking Cycles Sample (n=420)


27

JUVENILE FORENSIC ASSISTANCE FOR STABILIZATION AND TREATMENT


Juvenile Forensic Assistance for Stabilization and

Treatment (JFAST) is a rehabilitation program for

mentally ill youth that provides access to individualized

treatment and strengthens family stability. JFAST

incorporates an evidence-based drug court model to

address the mental health needs of youth within the

criminal justice system. Partners from the Juvenile

Court, Public Defender, District Attorney, Stabilization,

Treatment, Assessment and Transition (STAT)

program, Vista Hill Clinic, and the Probation

Department make up the JFAST team. The team meets

weekly to review candidates for the program, develop

treatment plans, and assess client

progression/graduation.

The program’s objective is to enroll participants in

individualized mental health programs that utilize a

community treatment approach and can include

individual and/or group therapy, case management,

wraparound services, education assistance, and

referral to medication assistance. The program also

uses a combination of incentives to encourage positive

behavior or sanctions to address program

noncompliance. Youth who are accepted into the

JFAST program typically have chronic alcohol and/or

other drug abuse issues, take prescription medication

related to mental health, and have a mental health

diagnosis beyond an Axis 1-Conduct Disorder. The

JFAST program works with participants who have

experienced significant mental health episodes, which

threaten in-home placement and place them at risk for

removal to a group home or residential treatment

facility. JFAST’s overall goal is to promote

rehabilitation and public safety while reducing

recidivism because it is one of the last viable options to

keep youth in their home and community prior to a

recommendation to the court for a commitment into a

residential treatment facility.


WORKING WITH FAMILY

Tanisha was referred for services after two

felony assaults at school. Before beginning the

services, she had been placed at a special day

treatment program through county mental

health, but was failing the program. Her school

district was determined she needed residential

treatment. Wraparound services were provided

by JFAST, including individual and family

counseling, as well as couples therapy for the

parents and Anger Management for Tanisha.

During treatment, it was discovered there was

substantial chaos in the home due to serious

dysfunction between the parents. Utilizing

wraparound services, the parents and

grandparents were both encouraged to

participate in treatment. The grandparents

were excited to become closer to Tanisha and

the entire team developed a plan where Tanisha

could spend more time with them. Eventually,

Tanisha eliminated all outbursts at school and

diminished them in the home. She was

eventually taken off her psychiatric medication.

Furthermore, she teamed with her parents and

educational advocates, to convince her school to

transition back to a regular high school by the

time she graduated from the program. As a

result of JFAST, Tanisha was able to manage her

anger and no longer threatens force or violence

on anyone.


28



The JFAST program experienced many changes over

the past fiscal year. The program was implemented in

July 2010 and was added to the formal evaluation in

FY 12-13 at the recommendation of the JJCC because

it provided services to San Diego youth and families

whose needs were not adequately being addressed.

In November 2012, the JFAST program was moved

from Probation’s Placement Unit to the Breaking

Cycles Division. This transfer allowed PO’s to provide

greater supervision and case management services to

youth. Additionally, a second probation officer was

hired, as well as a Youth and Family Counselor and

Juvenile Recovery Specialist. These additions helped

enhance services provided to youth and families and

doubled the capacity of youth able to be served from

20 to 40.

Because JFAST was serving an unmet need, it’s not

surprising that it experienced an increase in the

number of requests for screenings into the program.

To address the increase, the JFAST team explored

expanding the number of screenings within a month.

The JFAST team continued to reach out to mental

health providers throughout the region and to the San

Diego County Board of Supervisors to promote the

benefits of the program. The program also applied for

a grant that would assist with staffing and provide

additional direct services for youth and families. The

on-going collaboration with partner agencies has

enhanced and helped JFAST to provide services for

youth and families. The JJCC recognizes outstanding

professionals and volunteers working within the

juvenile justice community; and as such the JFAST

team was honored with the Juvenile Justice

Commission’s “At Large” award.

Research Overv iew

On an annual basis, JFAST targets approximately 40 at

risk wards of the court ages 12 to 18 with mental

health issues and who are committed to the program

by the Juvenile Court, along with their siblings and

families. Between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, 65

juveniles began or continued serving a JFAST

commitment. Of these 65 youth, 31 exited during FY

2012-13 and were tracked as part of this evaluation

effort. The baseline group for this program was

comprised of a sample of 38 juveniles who were

committed to JFAST between fiscal years 2010 -11

and 2011-12. However, the JFAST baseline will be

revised in the future in order to use the “absolute

goals” that will be averages of JFAST youth’s data that

have participated in the program. Additionally, this

revision will ensure consistency across all JJCPA

programs, which rely on averages to monitor

outcomes.

Criminal activity information was collected for both

the JFAST sample and baseline groups for the first 240

days of program participation, or through the end of

the program if less than 240 days, and information

regarding completion of probation obligations was

provided by program staff (Appendix Table A13). In

addition, SDRRC data were analyzed for the current

sample (Appendix Table A14).

BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS

Toni was referred to the JFAST program at

17. He was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder

and had a history of non-compliance with

medication. While at Camp Barrett he

developed a strong relationship with the

therapist and was admitted to JFAST with the

hope that he could successfully transition into

the community. Toni had little or no support in

the home. He and his mother came to this

county as refugees. She did not speak English

and had a cultural-based fear of mental illness

which caused her to be initially unsupportive of

medication and therapy. Team members

worked hard to break down that barrier and to

give Toni the support he needed. Before JFAST,

Toni had several separate felony petitions and a

sporadic history with school compliance.

However, during his time in the program, he

had no law or probation violations, complied

with all therapy and medication requirements,

and were able to get back on track to

graduate. He was able to successfully complete

the program after a year.


29

FIGURE 6 JFAST SAMPLE AND BASELINE GROUP ETHNICITY


NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. SOURCE: Probation Compliance Exit Form


As Figure 6 shows, there were similarities in the ethnic

composition of the FY 2012-13 JFAST sample and

baseline groups. The groups were also similar on other

demographic measures, including average (mean) age

(15.5 years, SD = 0.87, range 15 to 18 for sample and

16.3 years, SD = 1.4, range 13 to 17 for baseline) and

gender (56% male for the sample and 52% male for

the baseline) (not shown).

The JFAST sample was in the program for less time

than the (median18 248 days, range 84 to 651)

baseline groups (median 262 days, range 21 to 615).

Outcomes

Clients who exited JFAST in FY 2012-13 demonstrated

positive change, as measured by less contact with the

juvenile justice system, greater compliance with court

orders, attending therapy sessions, and higher

protective and resiliency scores at program exit

(Table 7 and Appendix Table 14).


40% 40%

13%

0%

8%

38% 41%

16%

0% 6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic White Black Asian/PacificIslander

Other

Baseline (n=38) JFAST Sample (n=32)


30

TABLE 7 JUVENILE FORENSIC ASSISTANCE FOR STABILIZATION AND TREATMENT HIGHLIGHTS –

FY 2012-13

Across the outcome measures, the FY 12-13 JFAST sample exceeded the baseline on 5 measures, met the baseline on

5 measures, and was below the goals on 12 measures. As previously stated, the JFAST baseline will be revised each

year to add additional participants and be consistent with the other JJCPA programs.

On average, JFAST clients had higher protective and resiliency scores at program exit (9.1 and -8.8) compared to

intake (6.8 and -12.4).

More than three out of five JFAST clients were compliant with attending therapy (61%) and taking their medication

(65%).

SOURCES: Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) Records, Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records, and San Diego

Regional Resiliency Checkup

SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT EVALUATION REPORT

A SANDAG CJ BULLETIN

APPENDIX

33

TABLE A1

CAT OUTCOME STATISTICS BY SAMPLE YEAR

2011-12 Sample 2012-13 Sample Absolute Goal

Arrested* 4% 2% 3%

Probation Referral 3% 1% 2%

Felony-Level Referral 1% <1% 1%

Referral Type:

No Referral 98% 99% 98%

Violent* 1% <1% 1%

Property 1% 1% 1%

Drug* <1% <1% <1%

Other 1% <1% 1%

Status 0% 0% 0%

Municipal Code/Infraction 0% 0% <1%

Sustained Petition 1% 1% 1%

Felony-Level Sustained Petition <1% <1% <1%

Sustained Petition Type:

No Sustained Petition 99% 99% 99%

Violent <1% <1% <1%

Property <1% <1% <1%

Drug <1% 0% 0%

Other <1% <1% <1%

Status 0% 0% 0%

Municipal Code/Infraction 0% 0% 0%

Institutional Commitment <1% <1% <1%

TOTAL 1,859 1,557 9,829

*Significant difference between FY 2012-13 sample and absolute goal. Significant differences are determined using the .05 threshold.

NOTES: Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for the first 90 days of the program, or through the end of the program if less than 90 days. The CAT “absolute goal” consists of 9,045 wards referred to Probation from FY 2005-06 through FY 2010-11. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

SOURCES: Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records

34

TABLE A2

CAT FY 2012-13 YOUTH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Intake Exit

Client Knowledge of Community Resources*

None 54% 15%

1 or 2 36% 49%

3 or 4 6% 24%

5 or more 4% 12%

Client Use of Community Resources*

None 69% 24%

1 or 2 28% 62%

3 or 4 3% 12%

5 or more 1% 2%

Client Perceptions About School

Regularly attending school* 88% 95%

Feels doing well/very well in school* 64% 94%

Feels positive about school* 60% 83%

Client Perception of Ability to Manage Conflict and

Solve Problems

Always/sometimes handles problems with others well* 63% 93%

Client Satisfaction with Services At Exit

Would refer a friend to program 87%

Somewhat/very satisfied with program services 97%

TOTAL 975 -1053


NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CAT Youth Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire

35

TABLE A3

CAT FY 2012-13 PARENT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Intake Exit

Parent/Guardian Knowledge of Community Resources*

None 58% 2%

1 or 2 31% 47%

3 or 4 8% 34%

5 or more 3% 17%

Parent/Guardian Use of Community Resources*

None 64% 4%

1 or 2 30% 58%

3 or 4 5% 30%

5 or more 2% 9%

Parent/Guardian Perception of How Child Doing in School

Feels doing well/very well in school* 43% 88%

Parent/Guardian Perceptions of Positive Family Communication and Influence of Child’s Peers

Family communicates well/very well* 51% 92%

Friends a positive influence* 53% 89%

Parent/Guardian Satisfaction with Services At Exit

Would refer a friend’s family to program 98%

Somewhat/very satisfied with program services 97%

TOTAL 535-578


NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CAT Parent/Guardian Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire

TABLE A4

MEDIAN NUMBER OF DAYS IN CAT PROGRAM BY FISCAL YEAR


All Clients

Median Days in Program 89.0 86.6 88.0

Range 14-427 10-276 1-1127

TOTAL 1,859 1,557 9,829

SOURCE: CAT Client Data

36

TABLE A5

TSP OUTCOME STATISTICS BY SAMPLE YEAR

2012-13 Sample Absolute Goal

Arrested 4% 8%

Probation Referral 9% 4%

Felony-Level Referral 1% 2%

Referral Type:

No Referral 3% 5%

Violent 1% 1%

Property 1% 2%

Drug 0% <1%

Other 1% 1%

Status 0% 1%

Sustained Petition 1% 3%

Felony-Level Sustained Petition 1% 1%


No Sustained Petition 99% 97%

Violent 1% 1%

Property 0% 2%

Drug 0% <1%

Other 0% 1%

Status 0% <1%

Institutional Commitment 1% 1%

Probation Violation 0% 1%

TOTAL 136 1,174

Complete Probation Requirements 68% 68%

TOTAL 136 1,174

Complete Restitution --

TOTAL 0 0

Complete Community Service* 78% 85%

TOTAL 130 1,157


NOTES: Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for the first 120 days of the program, or through the end of the program if less than 120 days. The TSP “absolute goal” consists of 1,174 wards referred to Probation for truancy from FY 2004-05 through FY 2009-10. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

SOURCES: Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records, Probation Compliance Exit Form

37

TABLE A6

TSP CLIENTS’ FY 2012-13 SCHOOL-RELATED OUTCOMES

Intake Exit

Average GPA* .95 1.24

Average days attended .64 .70

At appropriate grade level at exit 79%

No suspensions during program 97%

No expulsions during program 100%

TOTAL 75 – 95

*Significant at p<.05. NOTE: Cases with missing information not included. SOURCE: School Records

38

TABLE A7

SAS OUTCOME STATISTICS BY SAMPLE YEAR


Arrested 18% 17% 19%


Felony-Level Referral 3% 5% 6%

Referral Type:


Violent 2% 3% 2%

Property 4% 3% 4%

Drug 1% 1% 1%

Other 3% 4% 3%

Status 0% <1% <1%



Felony-Level Sustained Petition 3% 4% 4%



Violent 2% 2% 1%

Property 2% 3% 3%

Drug 1% 0% <1%

Other 1% 1% 2%

Status 0% 0 <1%

Institutional Commitment 4% 2% 3%

Probation Violation* 11% 40% 27%

TOTAL 195 338 2,045

Complete Probation Requirements 71% 64% 63%

TOTAL 195 338 2,045

Complete Restitution 51% 54% 59%

TOTAL 72 153 792

Complete Community Service 76% 72% 71%

TOTAL 157 271 1,588


NOTES: Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for the first 240 days of the program, or through the end of the program if less than 240 days. The SAS “absolute goal” consists of 2,045 wards referred to Probation from FY 2005-06 through FY 2010-11. Cases with missing information not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


39

TABLE A8

SAS FY 2012-13 POSITIVE DRUG TESTS

Intake* Exit

Positive Drug Tests 65% 37%

TOTAL 130

* Significant at p<.05.

SOURCE: Substance Abuse Services Drug Test Results

TABLE A9

SAS CLIENT SATISFACTION WITH PROGRAM AND STAFF

Staff expectations clear 93%

Treated with respect 93%

Staff concerned with well-being 90%

Good relationship with Juvenile Recovery Specialist (JRS) 85%

Satisfied with program experience 84%

Satisfied with the substance abuse services 83%

Treatment fit needs 83%

Helped stop substance use 82%

Changed feelings about substance abuse 80%

Learned a lot in alcohol and drug class 78%

Would recommend program to a friend 78%

Learned a lot in relapse prevention class 75%

TOTAL 378 – 517

NOTES: Cases with missing information not included. Percentages include clients who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” on a five-point scale.

SOURCE: Substance Abuse Services Client Satisfaction Survey

TABLE A10

DRUG COURT FY 2011-12 POSITIVE DRUG TESTS

Intake* Exit

Positive Drug Tests 61% 20%

TOTAL 59

SOURCE: Probation Case Management System (PCMS) Records

40

TABLE A11

DRUG COURT OUTCOME STATISTICS BY SAMPLE YEAR





Referral Type:


Violent 11% 1% 3%

Property 6% 7% 10%

Drug 2% 9% 7%

Other 7% 9% 7%

Status/Probation Violation 1% 0% <1%






Violent* 6% 6% 1%

Property 6% 3% 10%

Drug 1% 3% 2%

Other 4% 6% 3%

Status 0% 0% 0%

Institutional Commitment+ 4% 9% 8%

Probation Violation 6% 3% 8%

TOTAL 82 69 536


TOTAL 82 69 516


TOTAL 33 24 198


TOTAL 72 63 256

* Significant difference between FY 2012-13 sample and absolute goal. Significant differences are determined using the .05 threshold.

+ Institutional commitment is one of the many sanctions included in the program design. Only court-ordered institutional commitments over 90 days that are received due to new charges are included. Institutional commitment rates for the current sample and Absolute Goal may not be comparable due to changes in the out-of-home placement options available to and utilized by Drug Court over time.

NOTES: Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for the first 240 days of the program, or through the end of the program if less than 240 days. The Juvenile Drug Court “absolute goal” is based on data collection from of 536 youth from FY 2006-07 through 2010-11. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


41

TABLE A12

BREAKING CYCLES OUTCOME STATISTICS BY SAMPLE YEAR





Referral Type:


Violent* 5% 2% 4%

Property 4% 5% 5%

Drug 1% 1% 1%

Other 4% 6% 4%

Status/Probation Violation 0% 0% <1%

Municipal Code/Infraction 0% <1% <1%





Violent 2% 3% 3%

Property 3% 4% 4%

Drug 1% <1% <1%

Other 3% 1% 3%

Status 0% 0% 0%

Institutional Commitment+ 2% 4% 5%

Probation Violation*^ 24% 27% 21%

TOTAL 474 420 2,840


TOTAL 474 420 2,839


TOTAL 223 188 1,321


TOTAL0 377 329 2,071 *Significant difference between FY 2012 -13 sample and absolute goal. Significant differences are determined using the .05 threshold. + Institutional commitment is one of the many sanctions included in the program design. Only court-ordered institutional commitments over 90 days that are received due to new charges are included. ^ Probation has the ability to impose custodial or other sanctions without returning the minor to court as long as they have an active Breaking Cycles commit. Breaking Cycles utilizes this continuum of responses and, only in certain circumstances, does not return a ward to court for violation proceedings unless the ward has a new charge. As a result, the probation violation rate outcome reflects an improved response to probation violations. NOTES: Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for the first 240 days of the program, or through the end of the program if less than 240 days. The absolute goal for this program was comprised of a data collected on 2,840 juveniles who were committed to Breaking Cycles between FY 2006-07 through 2010-11. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


42

TABLE A13

JFAST OUTCOME STATISTICS BY SAMPLE YEAR

2012-13 Sample Absolute Goal

Arrested 25% 16%

Probation Referral 16% 11%

Felony-Level Referral 13% 8%

Referral Type:

No Referral 84% 90%

Violent 3% 0%

Property 6% 8%

Drug 3% 0%

Other 3% 3%

Status/Probation Violation 0% 0%

Municipal Code/Infraction 0% 0%

Sustained Petition 9% 5%

Felony-Level Sustained Petition 9% 0%


No Sustained Petition 91% 95%

Violent 0% 0%

Property 6% 3%

Drug 3% 0%

Other 0% 3%

Status 0% 0%

Institutional Commitment+ 6% 3%

Probation Violation^ 22% 42%

TOTAL 32 38

Complete Probation Requirements 97% 92%

TOTAL 32 38

Complete Restitution 60% 75%

TOTAL 5 4

Complete Community Service 72% 76%

TOTAL 25 33

*Significant difference between FY 2012 -13 sample and absolute goal. + Institutional commitment is one of the many sanctions included in the program design. Only court-ordered institutional commitments over 90 days that are received due to new charges are included.

^ Probation has the ability to impose custodial or other sanctions without returning the minor to court as long as they have an active JFAST commit. JFAST, similar to Breaking Cycles utilizes this continuum of responses and, only in certain circumstances, does not return a ward to court for violation proceedings unless the ward has a new charge. As a result, the probation violation rate outcome reflects an improved response to probation violations.

NOTES: Statistics related to criminal activity were tracked for the first 240 days of the program, or through the end of the program if less than 240 days. . The absolute goal group for this program was comprised of a sample of 38 juveniles who were committed to JFAST between fiscal years 2010 -11 and 2011-12. Cases with missing information not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


43

TABLE A14

AVERAGE FY 2012-13 PROTECTIVE, RISK, AND RESILIENCY SCORES BY PROGRAM

Protective Risk Resiliency

Intake Exit Intake Exit Intake Exit

TSP (n = 28) 7.1 8.7* 14.9 14.6 -7.9 -5.9

CAT (n = 1,503) 12.1 16.2* 8.8 6.8* 3.3 9.4*

Drug Court (n = 48) 6.5 10.0* 20.6 17.0* -14.0 -7.0*

Breaking Cycles (n = 248) 4.1 4.7 21.6 20.8* -17.5 -16.1*

JFAST (n = 9) 6.8 9.1 19.2 17.9 -12.4 -8.8

* Significant at p<.05.

SOURCE: San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup

SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT ... · SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE...

Documents

Transcript of SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREVENTION ACT ... · SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE...