Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-25; City Council; 17113 Exhibit; Amending Municipal CodeUS. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of Problems Eileen M. Garry This Bulletin is one of a series of OJJDP Bulletins focusing on strategies in the Youth Out of the Education Mainstream (YOEM) initiative. YOEM is a joint effort of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, US. Department of Edu- cation, to address the needs of youth who attend school irregularly because they are afraid or intimidated, truant, suspended or expelled, school dropouts, or in need of help transitioning back into mainstream schools from juvenile detention and correc- tional settings. For most students, skipping school used to be a one-time lark. More often than not, the antics were short-lived be- cause shopkeepers, neighbors, and family friends were quick to report them to par- ents or school authorities. Today, truancy has become a major problem in this country that negatively influences the future of our youth and costs taxpayers thousands of dollars. With daily absentee rates as high as 30 percent in some cities, it is not surprising that truancy is rated among the major problems facing schools. The statistics speak volumes: In New York City’s public school sys- tem, the Nation’s largest, about 150,000 of 1 million public school students are absent on a typical day. School officials do not know how many of them are absent without a legitimate excuse.’ The Los Angeles Unified School Dis- trict, the Nation’s second largest pub- lic school system, reports that an average of 62,000 students, or 10 per- cent of its enrollment, are out of school each day. Of these, only half come back with written excuses.2 In Detroit, 40 public school attendance officers investigated 66,440 chronic absenteeism complaints during the 1994-95 school year.3 Truancy may be the beginning of a life- time of problems for students who rou- tinely skip school. Because these students fall behind in their school work, many drop out of school. Dropping out is easier than catching up. Truancy is a stepping stone to delin- quent and criminal activity. A report compiled by the Los Angeles County Of- fice of Education on factors contributing to juvenile delinquency concluded that chronic absenteeism is the most powerful predictor of delinquent beha~ior.~ Truant students are at higher risk of being drawn into behavior involving drugs, alcohol, or violence. A California deputy assistant attorney who handles truancy cases says he has “never seen a gang mem- ber who wasn’t a truant fir~t.”~ Several studies have documented the correlation between drug use and truancy. A report from the University of Maryland found that 51 percent of female juvenile detainees not in school at the time of their arrests tested positive for drug use! Another study by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Drug Use Forecasting @UF) program reported that more than half (53 percent) of a group of 403 male juvenile arrestees in San Diego, From the Administrator Although truancy’s financial burdens are considerable, its cost cannot be measured in dollars alone. For a growing number of youth, truancy may be a first step to a lifetime of unem- ployment, crime, and incarceration. As this Bulletin illustrates, truancy often leads to dropping out of school, delinquency, and drug abuse. It may even be the precursor to adult crime. Classroom absentee rates in our cities are as high as 30 percent. Challenged by this problem’s mounting social and economic burden, communities are fighting back. Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of Problems describes seven promising community programs that are reducing truancy and juvenile delinquency by enlisting and coordina- ting a broad array of local resources. All of the initiatives emphasize the need to intensively monitor, counsel, and strengthen the families and communities of truant and delinquent youth. They also recognize that parents must be involved and held responsible for their children’s school attendance. By aggressively interven- ing when students are young and targeting problems before they start, these programs are making a significant difference in the lives of children and the neighborhoods in which they live. Shay Bilchik Administrator California, tested positive for drug use when taken to juvenile hall. Not surpris- ingly, those who did not attend school were more likely (67 percent versus 49 percent) to test positive for drug use than those who did attend? Many police departments report that daytime crime rates are rising in part be- cause students are committing crimes instead of going to class. They are vandal- izing cars, shoplifting, and scrawling graf- fiti on office buildings. When police in Van Nuys, California, conducted a %week tru- ancy sweep, shoplifting arrests fell 60 per- cent? Police in St. Paul, Minnesota, report that crimes such as purse snatching dropped almost 50 percent after police began picking up truants and taking them to a new school attendance center. Offi- cials in Roswell, New Mexico, say daytime burglaries and other reportable crimes in neighborhoods surrounding the town’s two high schools have decreased signifi- cantly since a daytime curfew ordinance was enacted in 1994. Society Pays the Price Truancy is costly. It costs students an education, resulting in reduced earning capacity. It costs school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in lost Federal and State funds that are based on daily attendance figures. It costs busi- nesses, which must pay to train unedu- cated workers. It costs taxpayers, who must pay higher taxes for law enforcement and welfare costs for dropouts who end up on welfare rolls or underemployed. burden, communities across the Nation are fighting back. Some counties are contem- plating fining students if they are not in class during school hours. Others are fin- ing or jailing parents who permit their chil- dren to continually miss school. (Note: In this Bulletin, the term “parent” refers to either a parent or other legal guardian.) Parental neglect is a common cause of truancy. Many parents of truant students do not value education. Some children are kept at home to work or babysit pre- school siblings. Others are prevented from attending school because of prob- lems at home, at school, or in their neigh- borhood. One truant officer described a student whose parents kept him home so that he would not have to walk past the neighborhood crack house, and immi- grant students in Minnesota reported staying home because they fear students at their schools. Frustrated by this social and economic Because truancy often indicates bigger problems in a child’s life, many communi- ties are designing truancy reduction programs that involve schools, law en- forcement, families, businesses, judicial and social service agencies, and commu- nity and youth service organizations. Seven programs, located in Arizona, California, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, are achieving good results through innova- tive approaches that: Recognize that parents must be in- volved and held responsible for their children’s school attendance. Provide intensive monitoring, counsel- ing, and other family-strengthening services to truants and their families. Each program described below has addressed the truancy issue by develop- ing a coordinated response that takes ad- vantage of programs in their community. One uses probation officers to intervene with students, while another depends on the county attorney. Several have tar- geted their efforts at middle school stu- dents, while others are working with children as young as 5 years old. Truancy Program Thriving Public and private agencies in Okla- homa City, Oklahoma, have pooled re- sources and expertise for a program that has successfully removed truant juveniles from the streets during school hours and reduced absenteeism, dropout rates, and daytime crime rates. Truancy Habits Reduced lncreasing Valuable Education (THRIVE)-a consor- tium of law enforcement, social service, and community agencies-was initiated by the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office. THRIVE fills a gap in services to youth by dealing with community prob- lems that need a coordinated strategy. The program began its efforts by con- vincing the Oklahoma State legislature to enact a tougher antitruancy law that al- lows misdemeanor charges to be filed against parents if their children miss more than 10 consecutive days of school. The law also authorizes local law enforce- ment professionals to act as attendance officers, detain truant juveniles, and transport them to a specified location after agreement with a school district. The consortium’s next challenge was to open a truant processing center, which began operating in 1989. Consortium members provide staff, facilities, supplies, and equipment, and they have since opened a second center. Open full-time during the school year, the centers are staffed by professional volunteers from the district attorney’s office, police de- partment, and public schools. A private, nonprofit organization, Youth Corner- stone, was established in 1990 to provide greater opportunities for funding. Police officers transport truant stu- dents to the centers, where they are inter- viewed and their parents are contacted. School officials also are contacted to con- firm students’ school status and to deter- mine if a pattern of absences exists. This information is provided to parents when they arrive at the center. Referrals for ad- ditional services are provided as needed. Students are released directly to a parent or relative within 1 hour or turned over to the Youth Services Shelter. The district attorney’s office sends parents a letter informing them of compulsory school at- tendance laws and the consequences of nonattendance. Followup attendance checks are made after students have had contact with THRIVE. With an annual budget of $75,000, the program served 848 children (with an av- erage age of 13.8) during the 1994-95 school year. The program was patterned after the Truancy Abatement and Burglary Suppression (TABS) Program in San Jose, California, a community similar demo- graphically to Oklahoma City. The THRIVE model has been used to implement similar programs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and in other cities. THRlVE is making a difference in the lives of children. Since 1989, the program has dealt with more than 3,600 truants. During this time, the Oklahoma City Police Department reports a 33-percent reduc- tion in daytime burglaries. Oklahoma City schools report a 1.3-percent reduction in dropout rates and a 1.7-percent increase in daily attendance. More than 75 percent of truants are released to parents, who generally react positively to the opportu- nity to address the issue of school atten- dance with their children. For more information about THRIVE, contact: Pam Harrell Executive Director P.O. Box 18674 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 405-841-0675 2 Truancy Program Targets Problems Before They Start Children who continually miss school often are placed in the custody of social service agencies, a move that is traumatic for children and their families and expen- sive for taxpayers. Recognizing the need to address this problem and find a way to keep these children in school, officials in Neosho County, Kansas, developed a pro- gram that helps prevent a child’s removal from home, increases school attendance, and strengthens families. The program began in 1993 when Kan- sas Department of Social and Rehabilita- tion Services (SRS) officers in the city of Chanute noticed a correlation between truancy and crime. With the Neosho County Attorney and local teachers, they initiated the At School, On Time, Ready to Work program. It recognizes that truancy is a problem not only for children, but also for families, schools, and communi- ties. Schools, SRS, and courts work to- gether to provide intensive supervision and therapy for children and support and education for parents. Under Kansas law, all children under the age of 16 not attending school are re- ported to SRS or to the county attorney. Pending a referral from the school, the county attorney invites the truant child and his or her family to enter the pro- gram. If they agree, parent and child are required to sign a contract to participate in the program for 90 days. During this time, the program provides: Intensive supervision of the child. An intensive supervision worker is as- signed for the entire 90-day period, verifying the child’s school attendance daily and meeting several times a week with him or her during the first 30 days of the contract. The worker serves as the liaison between SRS, the county attorney, the school, and the family. Support and group therapy services to the child. Students in the program meet regularly to share life experiences with a licensed family therapist and to learn skills to build self-esteem and confidence in school. Children in need of individual therapy are referred to the appropriate agency. Support and education services to the parents of the child. Parents are re- quired to attend group meetings that focus on effective parenting techniques and the importance of their child’s education. After a family completes the program, students are tracked, with particular at- tention given to ensuring their atten- dance at school. Of the 9 families and 12 middle school children enrolled in the project during the 1994-95 school year, only 1 child became the subject of a court petition. The remain- ing children stayed out of SRS custody, and none were reported to have committed offenses during the summer. The families who “graduated” from the program re- ported that they improved family commu- nication and better understood and worked with their children’s behavior. The program was so well received that it moved to elementary schools last year (1995-96), where it served an additional 12 to 15 families and approximately 20 children. Graduates of the program will be tracked to determine if intervention at an earlier stage prevents truancy and ju- venile offending. Neosho County Attorney Sheryl A. Beagley, pleased with results from the first 2 years of the program, reports that the county has received inquiries from other communities interested in imple- menting it. She believes it can be repli- cated because it is so cost-effective. The cost of the project for the nine families served in 1994-95 was $3,000-the cost of placing one child in SRS custody for 90 days. The program received private insur- ance, Medicaid, and State Family Services funds. The program used $1,600 in Family Services funds, which is much less than the cost of keeping a child in foster care for 30 days. Before the truancy project was established, SRS routinely placed children in foster care because of tru- ancy. Taxpayers may have saved as much as $30,000 in custody expenses by spend- ing only 10 percent of that amount on pre- vention. For more information about At School, Sheryl A. Beagley Neosho County Attorney’s Office Judicial Center P.O. Box 370 102 South Lincoln Chanute, KS 66720 / On Time, Ready to Work, contact: 316-431-5750 Program Offers a Helping Hand Officials in Atlantic County, New Jer- sey, are preventing truancy through a pro- gram that encourages parents to work with schools to keep their children in class. Project Helping Hand is an early identification and intervention program that provides counseling for parents and elementary students at risk of developing chronic truancy problems. It began in 1989 with Title I1 Formula Grants Program funds from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the U.S. Department of Justice. (The Title I1 Formula Grants Program provides grants to States to prevent and control delinquency and to improve their juvenile justice systems.) Students are referred to the program by school officials, although referrals from parents or social service agencies are also accepted. Students who have 5 to 15 days of unexcused absence, excluding absence due to illness or suspension, are eligible to participate. Once a student has been accepted into the program, a counselor immediately begins gathering student information from school personnel and makes every effort, including a home visit if necessary, to contact parents. After an in-person assessment of the youth and family, the counselor meets jointly with the family and school person- nel to develop a plan to improve the child’s attendance and address family needs. The program offers weekly coun- seling for up to 8 weeks. Counselors use a variety of interven- tion strategies and resources, including signed cooperative agreements among parents, youth, and the school; telephone discussions with appropriate parties; and other school resources such as child study teams, tutoring, and parent-teacher conferences. When necessary, counselors also refer families to housing, food stamp, day care, medical, substance abuse, psy- chiatric, parent support, and single- parent programs. Counselors strive to use extended fam- ily members as a support system and to involve the family with the school as often as possible so that they understand school procedures and are comfortable working with the school on their child’s behalf. id 3- If a family fails to keep appointments, counselors often make home visits to en- courage cooperation. If parents continue to resist participating or school atten- dance does not improve, the case may be referred to the Family Court. Once a student’s school attendance improves and other needed services have begun, the counselor closes the case and places the student on aftercare status. School personnel are then responsible for monitoring attendance and communicat- ing with parents. The counselor makes phone or in-person contact with the fam- ily, school, and others at 30-, 60-, and 90- day intervals, reinforcing the positive work of the family and ensuring their con- tinued participation in referral services. The program operates in 12 schools. Referrals are distributed equally between males and females. In keeping with the program’s focus on early prevention, most students referred to the program are in grades K-3. The program was originally imple- mented in Atlantic City, the county’s main urban area. It has been expanded to the suburb of Pleasantville and to Egg Harbor Township. According to Sally Ann Williams, direc- tor of family counseling, 83 percent of the 290 children participating in the program in the 1994-95 school year experienced no recidivism. For the 1995-96 school year, 84 percent experienced no recidi- vism. These numbers are consistent with results from previous years. For more information about Project Helping Hand, contact: Sally Ann Williams or Colleen Denelsbezk Atlantic County Division of Intergenerational Services 101 South Shore Road Northfield, NJ 08225 609-645-5862 Police and Youth Services Work Together To Fight Truancy Recognizing that truant students were a growing concern in St. Paul, Minnesota, four Ramsey County departments devised the Ramsey County Truancy and Curfew Violation Center program, which uses school counselors, the county attorney’s office, and police to help keep middle school students in school. The program began in 1994 and provides the following tions. The program plans to develop a intensive truancy reduction efforts: mechanism to track the 250 students who Intervention through the school. Stu- dents with 3 to 5 days of unexcused absence are referred to the St. Paul Youth Service Bureau (YSB) for assis- tance with problem solving, counsel- ing, family intervention, and other social services. A YSB staff person spends 4 days a week at the school, meeting with the student and parents to determine why the student is miss- ing school and what services are needed to resolve the problem. The staff member monitors the student’s attendance daily and, if necessary, re- fers the case to the county attorney’s office for further legal action. Intervention through the county attorney’s office. First-time truants and their parents are given an educa- tional presentation by a Ramsey County attorney. If a student continues to be truant, the county attorney schedules a meeting with the student, parents, and school staff to develop a contract for improved attendance. If the contract is not followed, an expe- dited court hearing is scheduled. Intervention through St. Paul Schools Attendance Center. Police officers pick up truants and deliver them to the Attendance Center, which is staffed by educational assistants and staff from YSB. Students are released only to par- ents or guardians. The program’s counseling services are funded with OJJDP Title V funds for local delinquency prevention and by the city of St. Paul, YSB, the St. Paul Police Depart- ment, and local schools. YSB counselors offer student and family counseling; peer and parent support groups; tutoring, rec- reational, and enrichment activities; and referrals to community resources to help families address issues contributing to truant behavior. St. Paul’s Attendance Center is an im- portant part of the program because it gives police a place to take truants and offers students access to intervention ser- vices. It accepts 10 to 15 students a day. Last year the Center served more than 1,100 truants and their families, the major- ity of whom were from the Hmong worth Laos) community. These students reported boredom or fear as the major reasons they did not attend school. In these cases, project counselors work with schools to alleviate the problem and reach out to par- ents through local parent-teacher organiza- were directly served by YSB counselors at the middle schools during 1994-95. The program has had a positive impact on the court system. Because truants are taken to the Attendance Center instead of being handled through the courts, the backlog of court processing has been re- duced drastically. Local law enforcement officials like the program because it gives officers a place to take truants without requiring cumbersome paperwork at the police department. Police also report that truancy enforcement is having a notice- able impact on the crime rate. According to Police Chief William Finney, between 1994 and 1995, the Attendance Center’s first year of existence, crimes such as purse snatching were reduced nearly 50 percent. For more information about the Ramsey County Truancy and Curfew Violation Center, contact: Sgt. John Harrington St. Paul Police Department 100 East 1 lth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 612-292-3612 Helping Neglected Children Stay in School Probation officers and school officials have joined together in Kern County, Cali- fornia, to help children, many of them neglected, stay in school. The Truancy Reduction Program works to increase average daily school attendance by reducing the risk factors contributing to children’s behavioral, delinquency, and substance abuse problems. Funded by the Kern County Superin- tendent of Schools through a consortium of independent school districts, the pro- gram uses two deputy probation officers from the Kern County Probation Office to work with students and their families. Students are referred to the program by consortium member schools after in- tervention efforts have failed to improve their school attendance. Once a student is referred, a probation officer contacts his or her parents by mail and then meets with the family at least four times. The officer also makes unannounced home visits, checks attendance at the school each week, counsels parents and students, and refers the families to social 4 service agencies. The attendance of every student referred to the program is tracked by the school for 1 year. When students continue to skip school, the probation officer refers them back to the school for possible referral to the district attorney’s office. These interventions are designed to improve attendance, increase academic performance, and improve social func- tioning by meeting the diverse needs of children and their families. The majority of students referred to the program receive assistance from one or more of the county’s social service agencies, and the probation officer fre- quently networks with caseworkers from these agencies. This networking, as well as followup monitoring, contributes to the program’s success. During the 1993-94 school year, 626 students participated in the program; 347 participated in 1994-95. These students represent less than 1.5 percent and 1 per- cent, respectively, of the student popula- tion in their school districts. Twenty-one percent of the students in the program in 1993-94 had no unexcused absences after entering the program, compared with 14 percent in 1994-95. The number of students participating decreased from 1993 to 1994 because of significant changes in the program’s referral process between 1993 and 1995. Starting in the fall of 1994, student referrals were reviewed by a school student assis- tance team before their acceptance, result- ing in more appropriate identification of truant students and decreased caseloads. Data for the 1995-96 school year will be available in late 1996. For more information about the Tru- ancy Reduction Program, contact: Steve Hageman Kern County Superintendent of 1300 17th Street-City Centre Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 Schools Office 805-636-4757 Coalition Works To Save Kids Alarmed by a noticeable rise in juvenile crime during school hours and a large in- crease in the number of school dropouts and children referred to the juvenile court for status offenses, a broad-based coalition of citizens and businesses in Arizona initi- ated a program that addresses truancy through community interventions. The Save Kids Partnership was modeled after Operation SAVE KIDS, a successful truancy program in Peoria, Arizona. The Partnership comprises 10 cities and towns and 15 school districts serving more than 63,000 students in western Maricopa County, which includes part of Phoenix. The Partnership is sponsored by WESTMARC, a coalition of businesses, utili- ties, education institutions, development firms, property owner organizations, indus- tries, cities, and towns in the county. The Partnership program targets youth 6 to 16 years old. It requires school per- sonnel to monitor school attendance closely and notify parents promptly if their children have 3 days of unexcused absence. The parents must respond, out- lining measures they have taken to ensure that their children are attending school. If a child continues to be truant (as evi- denced by 5 days of unexcused absence), the school forwards the matter to the city prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor sends a second letter to the parents. If a sixth unexcused absence occurs, the school notifies the prosecutor or law enforce- ment agency to request that criminal charges be filed against the parents. In lieu of formal criminal proceedings, the prosecutor can offer families a deferred prosecution diversion program designed to strengthen family relation- ships and encourage youth to go to school. The program includes a risk assessment and evaluation of every participating youth and parent and requires them to complete a counseling program approved by the juvenile court and Office of the City Attorney. The program requires stu- dents to attend school and participate in teen or adolescent group counseling and educational programs while their parents complete a parenting skills support group. If parents and juveniles complete the terms of the diversion program’s stipu- lated agreement, the case is dismissed. If the terms are not met, the matter is re- viewed for purposes of proceeding as a criminal violation and may be referred to court. The original Peoria program, Operation SAVE KIDS, has demonstrated solid results. When the program measured its impact on 12 elementary and 2 high schools within Peoria’s city limits, it found that after par- ents were notified by mail of their child’s absence, attendance increased for 72.2 per- cent of the students and only 27.8 percent were referred for prosecution. The program is conducting a compari- son study of three groups: juveniles who are criminally charged with a status of- fense and fail to appear in court (the con- trol group); juveniles who are criminally charged with a status offense, appear in court with their parents, and opt for, but fail to complete, the diversion program; and juveniles who complete the diversion program with their parents. Ninety-two percent of Peoria juveniles who completed the diversion program with their parents did not recidivate. Pro- gram officials also found that 95 percent of juveniles referred to court for status offenses committed their first offense at an average age of 14; 82 percent of all tru- ancy referrals were first-time offenders; and 48 percent of juveniles cited for sta- tus offenses were from broken homes. Operation SAVE KIDS began in 1994 with Title I1 Formula Grants Program funds from OJJDP and a matching grant from the city of Peoria. The western Maricopa County program received 1995 Title V delinquency prevention funds from OJJDP. For more information about the Save Kids Partnership, contact: Diane McCarthy WESTMARC President 9017 North 57th Drive Glendale, AZ 85302 602-435-0431 For more information about Operation SAVE KIDS, contact: Terry Bays Smith City of Peoria Assistant City Attorney 8401 West Monroe Street Peoria, AZ 85345 602-412-7347 Roswell Curfew Program Makes a Difference Hoping to make a difference in a tru- ancy problem that had become almost epidemic in areas of Roswell, New Mexico, the city’s mayor instituted a curfew dur- ing school hours in 1994. The primary goal of the ordinance is to strictly enforce school attendance. It allows police to question students who appear to be tru- ant in the community and requires school officials to notify parents or guardians when students are tardy or absent. Those students who continue to be truant may be assigned community service, and their parents may be fined up to $100. A. -5 Roswell’s initiative illustrates how the mayor, police, city agency leaders, city council members, educators, and citizens can effectively deal with a major problem by working together. The program’s re- sults are impressive, and cities in Arizona, California, and New Mexico have re- quested information about the curfew from the Roswell Police Department. report that daytime burglaries and other reportable crimes in neighborhoods sur- rounding the city’s two high schools have decreased. Police also found that: Since the curfew began, Roswell police Students who commit burglaries or other crimes generally commit them during school hours and then return after school to retrieve the hidden sto- len property. Many students detained for daytime curfew violations had been involved with criminal activities such as sub- stance abuse, burglary, larceny, and vandalism. Many detained truants had records indicating an escalating pattern of de- linquent behavior. Most detained truants were aware of and understood the consequences of breaking the law. School officials are pleased with the results of the daytime curfew because it has reinforced the school district’s policy of placing truant students into in-school suspension (ISS). Students in ISS are not allowed to sit at home or roam the streets. Instead they must perform com- munity service such as removing graffiti or picking up trash. Area businesses are reporting truant students to police more frequently than in the past. Before the curfew was enacted, police instructed callers to contact the Children, Youth and Families Department. However, little was done to intercede with truant children on the spot. The curfew provides an effective way for police to in- tervene immediately and show youth the consequences of their offending behavior. Parents are pleased with the program because, until the police contact them, they often are unaware of their child’s absence from school. Although the schools attempt to contact parents in the evening to report unexcused absences, the computer-generated calls are easily intercepted by truant students. Chaves County, which includes Roswell, is adopting a similar ordinance for county students. The city of Roswell is especially pleased because the county curfew will deter truants from leaving the city to avoid the Roswell Police Department. For more information about the Roswell Daytime Curfew Program, contact: Mayor Thomas Jennings City of Roswell P.O. Drawer 1838 Roswell, NM 88202-1838 Acting Police Chief Mike Jurecek Roswell Police Department P.O. Box 1994 Roswell, NM 88202-1994 505-624-6770 County Sheriff Terrell Tucker Chaves County P.O. Box 1396 Roswell, NM 88202-1396 505-624-6700 505-624-6500 Summary As these varied programs indicate, the issue of truancy has captured the atten- tion of communities across the Nation. Whether establishing truancy centers, providing parenting classes, or making unannounced home visits, these seven communities have chosen to intervene before truancy leads to more serious problems for youth and the community. cerned. Students who miss school fre- quently are often unable to develop interpersonal relationships or gain the knowledge and skills they will need for future employment. Frequent absence affects school performance and can lead to delinquent behavior. A Department of Justice study found that students with low reading achievement show delinquent behavior more often than students with higher reading score^.^ drop out of school. US. Department of Education statistics indicate that drop outs have lower earnings, experience more unemployment, and are more likely to end up on welfare and in prison than students who complete high school or college.1° youth either by reducing the impact of risks or by changing the way they re- spond to risk factors. Examples of protec- tive factors include positive adult and peer relationships, healthy beliefs, and clear standards of behavior. These factors will not only result in students attending These communities are wise to be con- Many chronic truants are also likely to However, positive factors can protect school regularly, but, once in school, at- risk youth will benefit from exposure to such protective factors. Truancy prevention and intervention efforts protect youth from risk factors and help reduce juvenile delinquency and other related problems. Programs that pre- vent a young person from becoming in- volved in the juvenile justice system save taxpayers money, prevent more people from becoming victims of crime, and help prevent the development of future criminal offenders. For the Nation’s next generation, preventing truancy may mean the differ- ence between a lifetime of problems or a lifetime of accomplishments. Resources Nearly half of the 50 States have imple- mented truancy prevention and interven- tion programs using funding from the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grants Program, adminis- tered by OJJDP, Office of Justice Pro- grams. For more information contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-63843736. In addition, the US. Departments of Justice and Education have created a manual to help parents, school and law enforcement officials, and community leaders combat truancy. The guide de- scribes how successful antitruancy initiatives across the country were planned and implemented. For copies, call 800-624-0100. The full text of the document is available through the Department of Education Web site at http:/Jwww.ed.gov. Other Sources of Information Abolish Chronic Truancy Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Bureau of Special Operations, Juvenile 300 South Park Avenue, Room 621 Pomona, CA 91766 Alternative Center for Truancy 823 West Central Boulevard Orlando, FL 32805 Fulton County Juvenile Court Truancy 4455 Capitol Avenue SW. Atlanta, GA 30312 Office Division 909-620-3330 407-836-8800 Intervention Project 404-730-1122 National Association of School Resource Officers P.O. Box 3379 Sarasota, FL 34230-3379 National Center for Education Statistics Office of Education Research and U.S. Department of Education 555 New Jersey Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20208-5721 National Dropout Prevention Center Clemson University 205 Martin Street Clemson, SC 29634-0726 864-656-2599 National School Safety Center 4165 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 290 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Stop and Cite Program Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Youth and Family Services Division 500 City Hall Drive Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Truancy Abatement Burglary Suppression Crime Prevention Unit San Jose Police Department San Jose, CA 95110 408-277-4133 Truancy Intervention Program Office of the Ramsey County Attorney 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 315 St. Paul, MN 55102-1657 941-951-5010 Improvement 202-219-2221 805-373-9977 707-5842699 6 12-2663 125 Truancy Mediation Program Mediation Center of Gaston County 401 North Highland Street Gastonia, NC 28052 704-868-9576 Truancy Prevention Service Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County Volunteer Services 6 16 Adams Memphis, TN 38105 901-528-8400 In addition, many resources are avail- able online when searching truancy, in- cluding State legislation and other programs. Endnotes 1. B. Shuster, "L.A. School Truancy Exacts a Growing Social Price," Los Angeles Times, June 28,1995, sec. A, p. 12. 2. Shuster, p. 1. 3. J. Richardson, "Searching for Answers to Student Absenteeism," Detroit Free Press, February 7, 1996, sec. NWS, p. 1A. 4. Shuster, p. 1. 5. J. Kass, "Curfew Mulled as Way to Stem Truancy, Crime," Los Angeles Times, March 31,1996, sec. B, p. 1. 6. E.D. Wish, T.A. Gray, and E.B. Levine (1996), Recent Drug Use in Female Juve- nile Detainees: Estimates h-om Inter- views, Urinalysis, and Hair Analysis (College Park, MD: Center for Sub- stance Abuse Research, University of Maryland), p. 4. 7. "Drug Use Among San Diego Arrestees," SANDAG Info, Special Issue 1996 (San Diego, CA San Diego Asso- ciation of Governments). 8. Shuster, p. 1. 9. D. Huizinga, R. Loeber, and T. Thornberry (1995), Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse (Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention), p. 15. Whitener (1994), Dropout Rates in the United States: 1993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). 10. M. McMillen, P. Kaufman, and S. This Bulletin was prepared by Eileen M. Garry, special assistant to the Administrator, OJJDP, with the assistance of Marc Jackson of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse and Kay McKinney, OJJDP consultant. quency Prevention is a component of the OF- fice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, D.C. 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 BULK RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID DOJIOJJDP Permit No. (3-91 NCJ 161958 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Ofice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in School Myriam L. Baker, Jane Nady Sigmon, and M. Elaine Nugent Truancy, or unexcused absence from school, has been linked to serious delin- quent activity in youth and to significant negative behavior and characteristics in adults.’ As a risk factor for delinquent be- havior in youth, truancy has been found to be related to substance abuse, gang activity, and involvement in criminal ac- tivities such as burglary, auto theft, and vandalism (Bell, Rosen, and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Carry, 1996; Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1995; Rohrman, 1993). Much of the work in the area of develop- mental pathways to delinquency shows that these behavioral problems often are followed by progressively more serious behavioral and adjustment problems in adulthood, including an increased pro- pensity for violent behavior (Bell, Rosen, and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Kelley et al., 1997). Further, adults who were frequently truant as teenagers are much more likely than those who were not to have poorer health and mental health, lower paying jobs, an increased chance of living in poverty, more reliance on welfare support, children who exhibit problem behaviors, and an increased likelihood of incarceration (Bell, Rosen, and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Haw- kins and Catalano, 1995; Ingersoll and LeBoeuf, 1997; Rohrman, 1993). Left unaddressed, truancy during the preteen and teenage years can have sig- nificant negative effects on the student, schools, and society. It is important to identify promising strategies to intervene with chronic truants, address the root causes of truancy, and stop youth’s pro- gression from truancy into more serious and violent behaviors. This Bulletin highlights some of the major research findings regarding the problem of truancy and demonstrates why it is important that schools and communities work to prevent and reduce its incidence. It also discusses Abolish Chronic Truancy (ACT) Now and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) Truancy Reduction Demon- stration Program (TRDP) and the TRDP evaluation. Overview of the Truancy Problem Every day, hundreds of thousands of youth are absent from school; many.are absent without an excuse and deemed truant. Although national data on truancy rates are not available (in part because no uni- form definition of truancy exists), many large cities report staggering rates of tru- ancy and chronic absenteeism? Some large cities report that unexcused ab- sences can number in the thousands A Message From OJJDP Each school day, hundreds of thou- sands of students are missing from their classrooms-many without a bona fide excuse. Left unchecked, truancy is a risk fac- tor for serious juvenile delinquency. Truancy‘s impact also extends into the adult years where it has been linked to numerous negative out- comes. Consequently, it is critical to identify strategies that intervene effectively with youth who are chroni- cally truant and that interrupt their progress to delinquency and other negative behaviors by addressing the underlying reasons behind their absence from school. This Bulletin provides an overview of the problem of truancy; describes the correlations of family, school, economic, and student factors with truancy; notes truancy’s role as a predictor of delinquency, including juvenile daytime crime; and tallies truancy’s social and financial impacts. Two OJJDP-funded projects are fea- tured: the ACT Now program oper- ated by the Pima County Attorney’s Office in Arizona and the Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program, a partnership with the Executive Office for Weed and Seed and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. Truancy is an early warning sign for future problems and should not be ignored. This Bulletin should assist our efforts to give it the attention it requires. on certain days (Heaviside et al., 1998). In Detroit, MI, for example, school atten- dance officials investigated 66,440 com- plaints of chronic absenteeism during the 1994-95 school year, and in Chicago, IL, the average 10th grader missed 6 weeks of in- structional time during the 1995-96 school year (Garry, 1996; Roderick et al., 1997). A national review of discipline issues in schools conducted in 199697 found that public school principals identified student absenteeism, class cutting, and tardiness as the top discipline problems in their schools (Heaviside et al., 1998). In general, the proportion of truancy cases handled in juvenile court is rela- tively small. However, the juvenile justice system is increasingly serving as the final stop for truants and as a mechanism for intervening with chronic truants. Recent statistics available on the extent of truan- cy cases in juvenile court clearly demon- strate how important it is for schools and communities to confront this issue. In 1998, truancy accounted for 26 percent of all formally handled status offense cases, representing an 85-percent in- crease in truancy cases in juvenile court since 1989 (from 22,200 cases in 1989 to 41,000 cases in 1998) (Puzzanchera et al., forthcoming). A closer look reveals that the number of petitioned truancy cases around the coun- try is about evenly divided between boys and girls and that whereas the majority of petitioned truancy cases involve 15-year- olds, there have been petitioned cases involving boys and girls as young as 10 (Puzzanchera et al., forthcoming). Correlates of Truancy toward education are also important Preliminary findings from OJJDP's evalua- factors in the community* tion of TRDP (see page 9) confirm previous findings that, in general, the correlates of Predictor of Delinquency truancy fall into four broad categories: Truancy has been clearly identified as one Family factors. These include lack of guidance or parental supervision, domestic violence, poverty, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, lack of awareness of attendance laws, and differing attitudes toward education. School factors. These include school climate issues-such as school size and attitudes of teachers, other students, and administrators-and inflexibility in meeting the diverse cultural and learn- ing styles of the students. Schools often have inconsistent procedures in place for dealing with chronic absenteeism and may not have meaningful conse- quences available for truant youth (e.g., out-of-school suspension). Economic influences. These include employed students, single-parent homes, high mobility rates, parents who hold multiple jobs, and a lack of affordable transportation and childcare. Student variables. These include drug and alcohol abuse, lack of understand- ing of attendance laws, lack of social competence, mental health difficulties, and poor phvsical health. of the early warning signs that youth are headed for potential delinquent activity, social isolation, and/or educational failure. Several studies have established lack of commitment to school as a risk factor for substance abuse, delinquency, teen preg- nancy, and dropping out of school (Bell, Rosen, and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1995; Rohrman, 1993). Decades of research have also identified a link between truancy and later problems such as violence, marital problems, job problems, adult criminality, and incarceration (Dryfoos, 1990; Cat- alano et al., 1998; Robins and Ratcliff, 1978; Snyder and Sickmund, 1995). More recent studies, such as OJJDP's Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinq~ency,~ indicate that truancy may be a precursor to serious violent and nonviolent offenses and that the connection between truancy and delinquency appears to be particularly acute among males (Kelley et al., 1997). In addition, findings from OJJDP's Study Group on Very Young Offenders indicate that chronic truancy in elementary school is linked to serious delinauent behavior Although not mentioned specifically, the at age l2 and under GOeGer and Farring- community significantly influences the 2ooo)* occurrence of truancy as well. Community factors are folded into the above four Juvenile Daytime Crime areas. For example, economic COnditions In several jurisdictions, law enforcement and differing CulturaIlY based attitudes officials have linked high rates of truancy to daytime burglary and vandalism (Ba- ker, 2000). Before TRDP started, for exam- ple, police in Tacoma, WA (one of OJJDP's TRDP sites), reported that one-third of burglaries and one-fifth of aggravated assaults occurring between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on weekdays were committed by juveniles. In Contra Costa County, CA (another TRDP site), police reported that 60 percent of juvenile crime occurred be- tween 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays. These daytime juvenile crime rates were a primary reason that sites began imple- menting TRDP. " Social and Financial Impact Students with the highest truancy rates have the lowest academic achievement rates, and because truants are the youth most likely to drop out of school, they have high dropout rates as well (Dynarski 2 and Gleason, 1999). The consequences of dropping out of school are well docu- mented. School dropouts have signifi- cantly fewer job prospects, make lower salaries, and are more often unemployed than youth who stay in school (US. De- partment of Education, 1993). According to a recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001:2), “6.0 percent of workers with a high school diploma were in poverty [in 19991, considerably lower than the proportion of those who had not completed high school (14.3 percent).” High school dropouts are also more likely to depend on welfare, experience unstable marriages, and serve time in prison than those who complete their schooling (Sny- der and Sickmund, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 1993). The financial Impact of truancy and the dropouts that result can be measured in a number of ways: + Less educated workforce. + Business loss because of youth who “hang out” and/or shoplift during the day. + Higher daytime crime rates (in some cases). + Cost of social services for families of children who are habitually truant. Truancy, however, has an even more direct financial impact on communities: the loss of Federal and State education funding. OJJDP’s Response to Truancy OJJDP is committed to identifying what works in preventing and reducing truancy and has supported numerous truancy ini- tiatives and evaluations, two of which are described in the sections that follow: ACT Now-a prosecutor-led program in Pima County, AZ-and TRDP. The ACT Now Program The Pima County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) in Arizona is among the many prosecu- tors’ offices nationwide that have recog- nized truancy as a significant problem and designed alternatives to adjudication by intervening with truants to prevent subs+ quent delinquent and criminal behavior. Pima County, located in the southeastern portion of Arizona, is the second most populous county in the State, with an esti- mated population of more than 780,000 people. More than half of the population lives in Tucson, the county seat. Between 1991 and 1995, Pima County’s truancy rates were among the highest in the State, accounting for more than 50 percent of the State’s chronic truancies (Elernat, 1996). In addition to high truancy rates, Pima County’s juvenile arrest rates were higher than the State average (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1996). Statis- tics also showed that in 1993, 8,720 juve- niles were referred to the Juvenile Court Center, and between 1993 and 1996, the number of referrals increased approxi- mately 23 percent, to 10,773. Since 1993, the most frequent type of referral (ac- counting for roughly onequarter of all referrals) has been for status offenses, which include truancy? During 1993 and 1994, a statewide work- ing group in Arizona focused attention on youth crime and developed recommenda- tions for prevention and early interven- tion. To address truancy and youth crime, the group recommended approaches that focus on the root causes of poor school attendance, such as lack of parental con- trol due to insufficient parenting skills, child abuse or neglect in the home, and family instability. The group also suggested that requiring parents to ensure that their children are supervised and holding par- ents accountable would increase school attendance and decrease juvenile crime. The working group’s recommendations resulted in an amendment to the State compulsory school attendance law to include criminal sanctions for parents or guardians who do not ensure that their children attend school. To address key risk factors associated with youth crime-poor school atten- dance and truancy-one of the working group members, PCAO’s deputy county attorney, initiated the development of a PCAO truancy diversion program. Armed with the new law that strengthened the enforcement of the existing compulsory school attendance statute by creating criminal fines and penalties for parents, PCAO formulated its truancy plan to in- clude three key elements: + Enforcement of the mandatory at- tendance law by holding parents accountable. + Provision of a diversion program that offers services to address the root causes of truancy. + Sanctions for parents and youth for con- tinued truancy or failure to complete the diversion program successfully. Critical to the truancy program’s suc- cess would be the active participation of school districts, local schools, law en- forcement offices, and community agen- cies, all of which have some responsibility for educating, providing services to, assisting, or intervening with youth. Armed with a vision, a concrete plan, and printed materials, PCAO invited more than 100 key stakeholders to convene and dis- cuss the problem of truancy. The tradi- tional response to truancy in the county had been to process the youth through the juvenile court, which often resulted in diversion with no consequences. As a result, school administrators had lacked confidence in the process and welcomed the new law and the new strategy for ad- dressing truancy. With the interest and support of school administrators, PCAO moved forward with its program for the 1994-95 school year. The program, Abol- ish Chronic Truancy (ACT) Now, became a cooperative effort among PCAO, the schools, law enforcement, and community organizations/agencies that provide ser- vices to youth and families. During the initial stages, no community agency was available to partner with PCAO to provide case management or services to truant youth and their fami- lies. Thus, in the first program year, PCAO received referrals directly from schools and coordinated the diversion program. A community-based nonprofit agency, the Center for Juvenile Alternatives (CJA), was established in spring 1995 in Pima County to provide an alternative to the institu- tional detention of status offenders, to take on case management responsibilities for the ACT Now program, and to provide services as part of the program to youth and their families. During the latter half of 1995, CJA became firmly established, and ACT Now became a fully coordinated interagency response to tr~ancy.~ As envisioned, ACT Now was to create and implement a sound, uniform enforcement plan that would not require significant investment of resources. The expressed purpose of the program was to return the habitually truant minor to school through the coordination and cooperation of partic- ipating schools, prosecution, law enforce ment, and CJA. ACT Now is grounded in the philosophy that a breakdown in paren- tal supervision has occurred, resulting in truancy, curfew violations, and juvenile involvement in a wide range of criminal and other unacceptable behaviors. The program design consists of several steps: 3 + Participating schools monitor atten- dance closely and, after the first unex- cused absence, send a letter to parents advising them of the potential for pros- ecution.6 The letter states that the school is working in close cooperation with PCAO’s Truancy Enforcement Program and that if the youth has at least three unexcused absences, his or her attendance record will be for- warded to the program. + After the third unexcused absence, a truancy referral form with identifying data and other background informa- tion, the youth’s official attendance record, and a notarized affidavit certi- fying the unexcused absences are sent to CJA.’ + Upon referral, parents are notified that they may be subject to misdemeanor prosecution and their child to filing of a truancy petition in juvenile court. Parents are offered the opportupity to participate in a diversion program and are asked to contact CJA. + Upon contacting CJA, parents or guard- ians are offered a deferred prosecution diversion program and asked to sign a written contract outlining terms of the agreement. + The parents who accept deferred pros- ecution are referred to community agencies that provide access to coun- seling, parenting skills classes, and sup port groups for the youth and parents. Referrals are made based on CJA’s psy- chosocial evaluations of truants and their families to determine the root causes of the truancy. of the deferred prosecution contract by parents results in case dismissal? + Successful adherence to the terms Process and Implementation Outcomes In 1996, OJJDP awarded a grant to the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRl) to conduct an evaluation of ACT Now. Full evaluation results, documenting both the implementation process and program outcomes, are found in Abolish Chronic Truancy Now Diversion Program: Evaluation Report (Sigmon, Nugent, and Engelhardt-Greer, 1999).9 APRI’s process evaluation documented the planning, implementation, evolution, and operation of ACT Now from the time the program was initiated through the 1997-98 school year. Evaluation re- sults indicate that, while the program’s I American Prosecutors ‘Research Institute The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) is a nonprofit research and program development resource that provides prosecutors with training and curricu- lum development, technical assistance, and consultation services and also pro- duces publications and conducts research. Since its inception in 1984, APRl has become a vital resource and national clearinghouse for information on the pros- ecutorial function and has supplied the field with interdisciplinary responses to the complex problems of crime and delinquency. For more information, visit APRl’s Web site at www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/lndex.html. purpose-to prevent chronic truancy by holding parents accountable and of- fering deferred prosecution along with services-has held constant since its in- ception, the program’s operation evolved significantly in its first 2 years, resulting in improved practice and expanded reach. The following components of the ACT Now program appear to have contributed to its successful implementation: + Clearly stated goals and objectives that address a problem of concern to com- munity stakeholders and provide a basis for a program in which commu- nities can participate. + Consistent written guidelines on pro- gram procedures, including sample letters to parents (in both English and Spanish) and referral forms. + Annual training for key school adminis- trators who can discuss program goals and procedures; provision of CJA and PCAO contacts who can answer school administrators’ questions about refer- rals throughout the year. + Clear delegation of the development of an attendance policy and the determination of when a student is tru- ant to school officials. + Establishment of a minimum number of absences before a student is referred to CJA, while recognizing local school decisionmaking in determining when a referral is appropriate. responding to truancy (the threat of parental prosecution) and a consistent response when schools refer parents of truant students to CJA after a mini- mum of three unexcused absences. + A coordinated response that includes services to address the underlying causes of truancy. + Allocation of CJA and PCAO staff, who work cooperatively with schools and law enforcement agencies in coordi- nating a communitywide response to truancy. + Enforcement of attendance statutes to send a consistent message to parents and youth regarding the seriousness of truancy. + Effective use of media coverage of the program and its associated truancy + Use of a new source of leverage in 4 sweeps to increase the community’s awareness of truancy, its conse- quences, and efforts to combat it. Two key shortcomings of the program were identified. First, at the time of the evaluation, the program had not imple- mented a consistent method for providing timely feedback to schools about the sta- tus of their referrals to CJA and the inter- vention’s outcome or whether a case was being prosecuted. Second, the computer- ized database and case tracking system originally envisioned by PCAO did not materialize, and the collection of data to track cases and monitor program out- comes and effectiveness was not fully implemented until fall 1997. Although the program has taken steps to address both issues, evaluators recommended contin- ued improvement in these two areas. Conscientious followthrough with all program participants is required for the program to be effective in the future. The successful cooperation and collabo- ration among agencies involved in the program have contributed significantly to the program’s success and represent an unintended consequence of its im- plementation. As a result of these activi- ties, community stakeholders have devel- oped new links that will serve as the basis for future joint activities of benefit to the community. Evidence of Effectiveness APRl focused on answering several key questions about the program’s effective- ness by collecting data on attendance rates (yearend attendance), number of truancies and dropouts, referrals to CJA and PCAO, services provided to youth and their families, and successful program completion/case disposition. A sample of four participating school districts was selected for a more indepth analysis of service delivery outcomes in the 1997-98 school year and attendance/truancy pat- terns over time. The key questions (and findings) of this evaluation follow. What impact has ACT Now had on school response to truancy and report- ing practices? The number of truancy referrals has increased steadily (from 46 in the 1994-95 school year to 332 in the 1997-98 school year) as has the number of schools making referrals to ACT Now. Data indicate that since the program’s pilot phase in 1995-96, program aware- ness has increased and truancy reporting has improved. In the years prior to full program implementation (1994-95 and 1995-96), there were few truancy referrals. During this time, schools made referrals directly to PCAO, and the policy of system- atic dissemination of information to refer- ring schools was not yet in place. When ACT Now became fully operational and reporting procedures were formalized, the number of schools reporting truancies (and the ratio of schools that reported to those that participated) increased sub- stantially. This increase is a strong indica- tion of school administrators’ confidence in the program and reflects significant change in reporting processes. How does the threat of prosecution af- fect whether parents ensure that their children attend school? Evaluators looked at two measures to determine the answer to this question: (1) the number of advisory letters sent to parents compared with the number of subsequent referrals to CJA and (2) PCAO prosecution of par- ents. APRl hypothesized that if the pro- cess has an effect on parental accounta- bility, the number of referrals should be less than the number of advisory letters sent to parents, indicating that action had been taken to address the truancy. Partici- pating schools countywide sent a total of 2,870 advisory letters to parents or guardi- ans of truant youth between 1995 and 1998. During the same period, schools made 1,118 referrals to CJA based on the parents’ or guardians’ failure to address truancy, a number substantially less than the number of advisory letters sent. Thus, the threat of prosecution prompted 61 per- cent of parents or guardians to take cor- rective action. When the effect on parental response is examined by school year, how- ever, a marked decrease is seen between the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years-in 1995-96,86 percent of parents took correc- tive action, as compared with only 21 per- cent in 1996-97. This variation over time can be attributed to a number of changes that were occurring in the program. The decrease in the number of advisory letters sent by schools and in subsequent program referrals between the 1995-96 and the 1996-97 school years can be linked to the fact that ACT Now had not yet been formalized in 1995-96. Also, the 1995-96 school year was the first year that schools referred truancies directly to CJA rather than PCAO. CJA offered very little outreach to the schools during this time to explain their role or to build confidence among school administrators in the procedures. Both factors may account for the decrease in parental response in the 1996-97 school year. After the program procedures were more clearly articulated to school adminis- trators, the number of advisory letters sent and parental response to the letters increased. Truants whose parents failed to address the attendance problem or participate in the ACT Now program were referred by CJA to PCAO for prosecution. Between 1994 and 1998, PCAO handled 674 truancy cases. The number of such defendants increased over time, from 50 in 1994-95 to 372 in 1997-98. Between the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years, the number of de- fendants increased 171 percent (from 68 to 184); similarly, a 102-percent increase in the number of defendants occurred between the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years (from 184 to 372). Overall, nearly 65 percent of the cases represented tru- ants between ages 13 and 15, and 22 percent involved truants between ages 10 and 12. The youngest truants, ages 6 to 9, represented approximately 11 percent of the cases. Using prosecutorial discretion, PCAO did not file charges in all 674 cases. An analy- sis of PCAO truancy case processing by school year shows that the majority of cases were closed with no disposition, primarily because a parent or guardian could not be located. More than half of the cases were closed in school years 1994-95 and 1995-96. By the 1996-97 school year, the number of cases closed without PCAO action decreased, and more parents were prosecuted, specifically: + In school year 1994-95,27 percent of + In school year 1995-96,23 percent of + In school year 1996-97,41 percent of + In school year 1997-98,41 percent of Of those cases that were not closed by PCAO, the majority resulted in guilty pleas, and of those that were resolved through a bench trial, 98 percent were found guilty. The most commonly imposed sanctions included community service or a $200 fine. In ACT Now’s initial phase (during the 1994 to 1996 school years), almost half of those prosecuted (42.9 percent) were sentenced to perform community service and slightly more than one-third (35.7 percent) were fined. By the 1996-97 school year, the range of sanctions had expanded to include higher cases were prosecuted. cases were prosecuted. cases were prosecuted. cases were prosecuted. 5 fines-between $300 and $500-suggesting a stronger attempt by the juvenile court and PCAO to hold parents accountable. In fact, during this period the number of parentslguardians who took corrective action to address the truancy before being referred for prosecution increased sub- stantially. Fewer community service sanc- tions and more sentences of unsupervised probation and payment of fines were im- posed. One explanation for the change in types of sanctions imposed is that the community service option did not work as originally planned. Under the initial program plans, schools were to develop community service projects at the school for parents to complete as part of their sentence. Schools were reluctant and, as a result, few developed such projects. Anecdotal information gathered during site visits and through telephone inter- views indicates that because the com- munity service concept did not work as planned, it was phased out as a sentenc- ing option. Are truant youth and their parents or guardians receiving adequate services to address the root causes of the truancy? CJA conducts an intake assessment before making any service referrals. Services are tailored to the specific needs of truant youth and their families to address the root causes of truancy in addition to other factors related to family social and physi- cal health. Services range from assess- ments to evaluations to counseling to liv- ing assistance. In the 1995-96 school year, CJA staff made only 197 service referrals, but by the following school year, the num- ber of referrals had increased to 593.1° The majority of referrals were for counsel- ing, intensive case management services, and participation in the ACT Well class, a 6-hour program designed to provide information to youth and parents and help them build skills to prevent truancy. The increase in referrals continued in the 1997-98 school year: the majority of the 714 referrals made were for intake assess- ment followed by other services, such as counseling, case management, and con- flict resolution. To further assess service delivery, addi- tional individual-level data were collected for the four school districts in the evalua- tion sample. In the 1997-98 school year, the first year individual-level data were available, 394 youth from the four school districts included in the evaluation were referred to CJA. CJA recommended serv- ices for more than half of all the youth referred. Services were recommended only for those youth whose parents re- sponded either to the first or second CJA advisory letter (57 percent). Of the parents who did not respond to the letters, more than one-third were referred for parental prosecution. For others of these parents (roughly 10 percent), the case was closed and no recommendations were made because the parents or youth could not be located or had moved, the youth was in an out-of-home placement, the youth was being home schooled, or the school withdrew the referral. Of the youth who were referred to services, 79 percent successfully completed the program and the charges were dismissed. As shown in the table below, parental response to the first letter from CJA is a strong predictor of successful program completion. Preliminary evidence suggests that the provision of services has a lasting effect on subsequent truancy and parental su- pervision. In the 1997-98 school year, only 33 of the 394 youth (8 percent) referred from the four school districts in the sam- ple were recidivists, suggesting that ACT Now and related services have an effect on truancy." Ideally, tracking youth individual-level data to assess prior per- formance in the program would provide a further indication of the strength of the relationship between successful program completion and recidivism. However, the data available for this evaluation were insufficient for such indepth analysis. How has the number of truancies and dropouts changed during the program? Two variables were used to assess changes in truancy and dropout rates: school reports of the number of truancies and the cumulative number of dropouts. Data were collected from PCAO and the four sample school districts for the 1996- 97 and 1997-98 school years to determine whether the number of truancies had changed.'* Each school district showed a decrease in the number of truancies between the 199697 and 1997-98 school years, rang- ing from a decrease of 64 percent in the largest school district to 4 percent in the smallest. The truancy rate for the largest district in the sample originally had been among the highest in the State, and thus the observed decrease is dramatic. Another measure of the program's effec- tiveness was the examination of recidi- vism. Because truancy data on individuals were unavailable, APRI used the number of dropouts as a proxy variable for sub- sequent, chronic truant behavior (i.e., recidivism). If ACT Now is effective in addressing chronic truancy, there should be a decrease in the number of dropouts relative to the number of truancies being reported. Such a finding would provide initial support for the hypothesis that ACT Now is effective in breaking the cycle of truancy before it leads to dropping out of school. With the exception of the two smaller school districts, both of which experienced a slight increase in the num- ber of dropouts, the cumulative number of truancies and dropouts decreased from the 199697 to the 1997-98 school year. In addition, the largest decrease in dropouts correlated with the largest decrease in tru- ancy rates. Although these figures suggest that ACT Now is effective in reducing chronic tru- ancy and school dropouts, no further concrete conclusions can be drawn from these data because the number of truan- cies reported does not equal the number of youth who have been truant. Truancy data on individuals are necessary to de- termine whether the proportion of drop outs to truants has changed over time. Moreover, without individual truancy and dropout data, it is impossible to make Relationship Between Parents' Response to Letters and Completion of Program (1997-98 School Year) Program Successfully Program Not Response to Letter Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Completed Completed Total First 119 86.2 19 13.8 138 100 Second 34 73.9 12 26.1 46 100 Total 153 83.2 31 16.8 184 100 Note: Chi-square=3.737; ~0.05. 6 concrete statements about the relation- ship between truancy and dropping out of school. Overall Assessment ACT Now has developed into an institu- tionalized response to truancy in Pima County. The schools, law enforcement, PCAO, service providers, and the local media see the program as an integral part of the community’s efforts to address truancy and associated problems that put youth at high risk of serious delinquent behavior. Overall, ACT Now has become a new source of leverage for schools to respond to truancy and has allowed for a more con- sistent response when schools make refer- rals to CJA. Critical to this process was the establishment of a minimum number of absences before a referral was made and a recognition of local schools’ decision- making authority in determining when a referral is appropriate. In addition, the relationships built among the schools, law enforcement, the juvenile court, and PCAO are an important program outcome. The outcome evaluation supports APRI’s finding that ACT Now has resulted in a co- ordinated response to truancy that is em- braced by the schools, law enforcement, the prosecutor, and the courts. This re- sponse is evidenced by the number of tru- ancy sweeps, CJA referrals, services pro- vided to youth and their parents, parental prosecutions, guilty pleas, and the in- creasing monetary sanctions imposed. ACT Now also appears to have an effect on parental accountability and school attendance. This evidence, however, must be inter- preted carefully, as it is based primarily on aggregate data. Individual data on truants, parents, and recidivism would provide stronger evidence. In addition, information from parents regarding their perceptions of the ACT Now program and its impact on their supervision of school attendance would further enhance the current evaluation’s findings. Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program In 1998, OJJDP, the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program initiated a demonstration grant program for truancy red~ction.1~ In developing the structure of their truancy reduction effort, OJJDP and its partnering agencies relied on lessons learned from and key principles of other truancy and risk prevention initiatives that have shown promising results. A comprehensive, collaborative model that targets the reduction of risk factors associated with incidence of truancy was suggested by the Youth Out of the Edu- cation Mainstream (YOEM) Initiative14 and is further supported in the literature (Catalan0 et al., 1998; Dryfoos, 1990; Mor- ley and Rossman, 1997; Schorr, 1997). The models that show the most promise, not only of reducing truancy, but also of af- fecting its risk factors, include several key components: Parental involvement. Meaningful sanctions or consequences for truancy. Meaningful incentives for school attendance. Ongoing school-based truancy reduc- tion programs. Involvement of community resources (e.g., law enforcement). Based on her extensive work with suc- cessful prevention models targeting at-risk youth and families across the country, Schorr (1997) concludes such programs must: Be comprehensive, flexible, responsive, and persevering. View children in the context of their families. Deal with families as parts of neighbor- hoods and communities. Have a long-term, preventive orienta- tion and a clear mission and continue to evolve over time. Be well managed by competent and committed individuals with clearly identifiable skills. Have staff who are trained and sup ported to provide highquality, re- sponsive services. Operate in settings that encourage practitioners to build strong relation- ships based on mutual trust and respect. One of the most important elements of any effective prevention effort is the exis- tence of a collaborative partnership of public agencies, community organizations, and concerned individuals that interact with and provide services to truant youth and their families. OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders highlights the critical need for this collaboration: “Comprehen- sive, communitywide prevention requires collaboration and resource sharing. In most communities, barriers must be bro- ken down and collaborative bridges built among and within agencies, organizations, and groups with responsibility for ad- dressing juvenile delinquency” (Howell, 1995:26). For example, schools need to interact more effectively with community organizations (businesses, senior organi- zations, local government, social services organizations, health agencies, and civic organizations) to achieve their education- al goals. Such collaboration needs to ex- ist within the school system as well- among teachers, administrators, teaching assistants, special education teachers, parents, and students (Howell, 1995). TRDP Demonstration Sites In 1998, OJJDP solicited applications from communities that were engaged in inte- grated, communitywide plans to reduce truancy. Applicants were required to outline a comprehensive program that included four major components: + A continuum of services to support truant youth and their families. + System reform and accountability. + Data collection (from schools, agen- cies, courts) and evaluation. + A community education and awareness program that addresses the need to prevent truancy and intervene with truant youth. In 1999, OJJDP awarded funds to eight sites, a mixture of Weed and Seed and non-Weed and Seed sites (one, Georgia, declined to apply for continuation after the first year). The seven remaining sites are diverse in geography, ethnicity, socio- economic status, and community-based leadership. Common to the truant popula- tion at all sites is the high representation of minority students and families and of students and families living in poverty. Sites received either $50,000 or $100,000 per year for 3 years. The disparity in funding was due to the assumption that the Weed and Seed sites (funded at $50,000) would need less money for start- up and planning because the program would exist within the local Weed and Seed effort. While the demonstration 7 Colorado Foundation for Families and Children The Colorado Foundation for Families and Children (CFFC) is a private, non- profit organization that promotes the health, education, and well-being of children and families through re- search, program development, and evaluation of promising community- based activities. CFFC accomplishes this by assisting in the formation of partnerships between governmental and private entities to support the community implementation of effec- tive practices. In addition to evaluat- ing TRDP, CFFC oversees the evalu- ation of several truancy projects in Colorado. For more information, visit CFFC’s Web site at www. coloradofoundation.org. For informa- tion about CFFC’s evaluation of TRDP, visit www.coloradofoundation. orghationaltruancyproject. sites/programs listed below were being chosen, OJJDP selected the Colorado Foundation for Families and Children (CFFC) as the national evaluator of this project. Department of Health and Human Services/Weed and Seed Offlce, Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa County is building on its Weed and Seed efforts to implement a program targeting ninth grade students with a history of chronic truancy and their families. An onsite prc- bation officer will deliver the intervention by assessing families and youth and refer- ring them to appropriate resources within the school and community. State Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL. The State Attorney’s Office provides a precourt diversion program for truant youth and their families. The school dis- trict refers families to the program when chronic truancy has not been solved by school-based intervention. Following the referral, a hearing is conducted with the parent, youth, school attendance social worker, and volunteer hearing officer. A contract is negotiated that includes plans for reducing truancy and accessing serv- ices and community supports. A case manager makes home vlsits and monitors the family’s compliance with the plan. In the fall of 2000, a school-based component was added to address prevention and early intervention at two elementary schools, where an onsite case manager monitors attendance and provides early outreach. Clarke County School District (Weed and Seed site), Athens, GA. Clarke County’s Reducing Truancy in Middle Grades pro- gram employed a case manager who worked directly with students at two mid- dle schools to identify youth with five or more unexcused absences. The case man- ager made home visits, called parents, and facilitated parent-teacher conferences to assess the causes of truancy. The case manager provided referrals to community- based resources and some direct services to families. In addition, students and fami- lies who did not respond to the program’s case management approach were sum- moned to appear before an attendance panel. This site declined to apply for con- tinuation after the first year and is no longer participating in TRDP. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. The University of Hawaii is building on a previ- ous program to prevent truancy in the Wai’anae area. Attendance officers in two elementary schools work to provide early outreach to young students and their families when absences become chronic. Community resources are used to address the issues that may prevent youth from attending school regularly. In addition, the schools work with the Honolulu police department to provide Saturday truancy workshops for youth with chronic truancy problems and their families. Suffolk County Probation Department (Weed and Seed site), Yaphank, NY. Suffolk County’s South Country Truancy Reduction Program, which builds on com- munity policing efforts, targets elementary and middle school students who have ille- gal absences. A probation officer monitors attendance in collaboration with school personnel, facilitates access to school and community-based services needed by the student and family to establish regular school attendance, and observes attend- ance and other school-based indicators to ensure that the student’s attendance and engagement at school are improving. A similar model is in existence at the local high school. Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office (Weed and Seed site), Houston, TX. The Mayor’s Antisang Office placed an experienced case manager in one high school to identi- fy students with chronic truancy patterns. Through home visits and school-based supports, students and their families are provided with services, support, and re- sources to address truancy. The program also works with community police offi- cers, who provide a “knock and talk” service for youth and their families when truancy continues to be an issue. The officers assess family functioning and deliver information about the law and truancy outcomes; they also issue the official summons to court for a truancy petition. King County Superior Court, Seattle, WA. After a truancy petition is filed, families have the option of attending 8 an evening workshop, participating in a community truancy board hearing, or pro- ceeding to court on the charges. The work- shop includes education about truancy law and outcomes and facilitates planning between the parent and youth for address- ing the cause of truancy. Community tru- ancy boards composed of local community members hear the case, develop a plan for use with the youth and family, and monitor compliance with the stipulated agreement. In the fall of 2000, a school- based component was added to address prevention and early intervention. Safe Streets Campaign (Weed and Seed site), Tacoma, WA. The Tacoma truancy project is based in one middle school where an onsite coordinator monitors attendance and connects youth and their families with community resources to address the underlying causes of truancy. This program works in tandem with law enforcement officials and a truancy center, to which truant youth are delivered and then assessed after pickup by community police officers. The National Evaluation The goal of the evaluation of TRDP is to describe the process by which inter- agency community-based coalitions de- velop, implement, and sustain effective truancy reduction efforts. Sites work with the national evaluator to accomplish the goals of the evaluation. By design, these efforts are intended to build on the com- munity’s strengths: its service organiza- tions, social support agencies, businesses, parents, youth, and religious organizations. In addition, programs should enhance the awareness of the community, policymak- ers, and stakeholders that truancy pre- vention and reduction are necessary com- ponents of systemic support to keep youth in school and out of the juvenile justice system. The evaluation has two main compon- ents: determining whether the programs reduce truancy and describing the role and processes of the community-based collaboratives driving the local programs. The collaboratives’ processes also are being evaluated to help other sites in their implementation plans. The design for program evaluation is multimodal. As sites implement their pro- grams and begin to serve students and families, numeric and descriptive data are collected. Indicators for success evaluated across all sites include school attendance, school discipline, and academic achieve- ment. Each site has been empowered to further tailor its individual evaluation to track additional outcomes that may be of local interest. For example, some sites are questioning participating students and families about their awareness of existing public outreach efforts to determine the efforts’ efficacy in reaching the target audience. A survey was administered early in pro- gram implementation to assess the type of information and level of detail that would be available from individual sites. This survey directly informed the empir- ical data collection strategy planned. Individual-level, schoolwide, and commu- nitywide data on the following elements were requested: Individual-level: Demographics of the targeted students and their families and targeted students’ school atten- dance, academic achievement, disci- pline incidents, and so forth. Schoolwide: Special education rates, data regarding free and reduced-price lunches, school completion/promotion rates, attendance rates, discipline sta- tistics (e.g., suspension, expulsion, of- fice referrals), academic achievement information, and dropout rates. Communitywide: Truancy petitions filed and cases heard (including break- down by age, ethnicity, gender, and grade level of truant youth), daytime crime data (including arrests, gang activity, and commitments of youth to secure detention facilities), probation and diversion data, comparable data from a control group (i.e., another school), and other data involving is- sues such as substance abuse, child welfare, and mental health. All sites may not have all of the data available; however, most key correlates and indicators are available to inform the evaluation. Program Context To date, contextual data describing the schools and communities in which the programs are situated indicate that pri- mary correlates with truancy and school disengagement include poverty, low aca- demic achievement, high mobility (e.g., moving from home to home, school to school), high rates of school discipline, and overrepresentation of special educa- tion eligibility. Of the data elements requested, only at- tendance rates, eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches, and special educa- tion rates were reported reliably. These data are provided in figure 1. Because school districts and States vary in the way such data are collected and counted, the consistency in measures across sites is not yet clear. As an early activity in the evaluation, sites were asked to complete a logic model for their programs, identifying the targeted strengths and needs of the students, fami- lies, schools, and community. Sites used the model to frame the flow of needs as- sessment, program strategies, measurable milestones, and ultimate results. “Youth to be in school and succeeding“ was unani- mously identified as the expected result of the sites’ truancy programs. Each site used the same logic model template to frame its assessment and plan. Because each site serves a different community and different target population, the strengths, needs, strategies, and mile- stones may differ from site to site. Figure 2 summarizes the commonalities found across sites (see page 11). The Community-Based Collaboratives The evaluation of community-based col- laborative groups depends on multiple methods to gather information: a survey entitled Working Together: A Profile of Col- laboration (Omni Institute, 1992), one-on- one telephone interviews, onsite group interviews, and site-based observations. The information collected during the first year is considered a baseline and will help evaluators understand the context in which each program exists. Working Together measures the percep- tions of group members in five key areas: context, structure, membership, process, and results. Survey results are intended to be used as a springboard for action planning. Evaluators administer the in- strument annually and inform each site of the results on a yearly basis. During the first year that Working Together was administered, evaluators received 82 completed surveys (about 11 surveys 9 Figure 1 : School-Based Context of TRDP School Attendance Rates Athens, GA 88.2 Houston, TX 98.0 Honolulu, HI 93.3 Jacksonville, FL 86.0 Tacoma, WA 93.4 Yaphank, NY 89.2 75 80 85 90 95 100 Percent Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Athens, GA 52.0 Houston, TX 80.0 Honolulu, HI 60.9 Jacksonville, FL m 21.9 Yaphank, NY 78.0 Tacoma, WA 83.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent Special Education Eligibility Athens, GA I 16.9 Honolulu, HI 11.7 Houston, TX 9.0 Tacoma, WA 22.0 Yaphank, NY 16.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percent Note: Data unavailable for Contra Costa County, CA, and Seattle, WA. Special education data unavailable for Jacksonville, FL. from each of the 7 participating sites). completed the surveys. Figure 3 (page 12) Representatives from law enforcement, shows that, on average, sites rated their courts, schools, mental health agencies, performance and success in each area and community-based organizations fairly high, with some differences. Telephone interviews, which will be held annually, were conducted with partici- pants from six sites in the first year.15 A total of 24 interviews-approximately 4 per site-were completed with represen- tatives from law enforcement, schools, courts, and community-based organiza- tions who were active in the community- based groups. The interviews assessed participants’ awareness of the local causes and correlates of truancy, their perceptions of the presence of needed partners in the collaborative task force, the state of inter- agency collaboration, and the need for poli- cy change. Interviewees all indicated their communi- ties had been working on truancy issues for at least 2 years. As they reported, the causes of truancy, in general, fell into four broad categories: family factors, school factors, economic influences, and student variables (see page 2 for a more detailed discussion of these factors). Interview respondents were asked to iden- tify who should be the collaborative’s key members (see figure 4, page 12). The ma- jority identified law enforcement, youth services, juvenile justice agencies, schools, social services, and community-based or- ganizations as important key members. Al- though very few mentioned parents, youth, the faith community, businesses, and so- cial organizations, these individuals and organizations are also key members of tru- ancy collaboratives. Respondents were then asked if all need- ed partners identified above were at the table. The majority indicated that all nec- essary stakeholders were present (see figure 5, page 12); some realized they were missing important members of the community-typically identified were the faith and business communities. Onsite interviews, which will be held annually, suggested that many of the collaboratives were unclear about their group vision or mission and hence about their goals and necessary steps to achieve goals. Site-based observations are still being compiled, as some sites were not oper- ational at the time this Bulletin was writ- ten. In addition, the operational sites did not always understand the purpose of requests for site visits during which “typi- cal” activities would be observed. Hence, these data are still being collected in some cases. Specific issues regarding jurisdiction, funding, and the sharing of information 10 Figure 2: Logic Model for TRDP Evaluation Family School Student Community Communication between school and home Knowledge of home Knowledge of family needs Afterschool resources available Knowledge of school Strong agency Information-sharing established environment collaboration with other agencies Desire to be in school Available resources and succeeding Community center Tutorial services Community attendance panel Clear laws Political support Basic Positive school climate Housing Education and awareness Employment Risk factors for truancy Childcare Process for truancy referrals Transportation Early intervention/prevention Parenting skills Mentoring Value of education Tutoring Community resources Counseling Importance of parental Mediation involvement at school Alternative programs Truancy and attendance Afterschool programs laws Tracking and monitoring Education and awareness Services Addressing cultural attendance differences Commitment by administration Translation of services Value of education Mental health assessment Family counseling Substance abuse intervention Treatment Education and awareness Consequences of truancy Value of education Available resources Social/emotional skills Adjustment to middle school/high school Peer and family relationships Coping strategies Behavioral support Academic support Attachment to school law Service agency coordination Streamlined assess- ment and referral Reduced duplication of services Culturally appropriate Involvement of all practices community partners Police Faith community Business community Education/awareness/ mobilization Truancy law Value of education Truancy risk factors Process across agencies Assessment Resource referral Counseling Education Parenting programs Technical assistance Grants to support efforts Cross-agency training Development of districtwide attendance policy Development of afterschool programs and training Assessment Development of mission Referral statement Peer programs Assessment of Truancy education collaborative Education about Training conference consequences Public awareness Social work interventions campaign task force Establishment of a Community training Improved access to Awareness of risk factors Improved peer and Mission and work plan services More efficient referrals family relationships identified Improved involvement Community truancy boards Decreased behavior referrals Contract made with in child's education in place Improved attendance Improved employment Conference planned Improved academics Access to childcare Training disseminated Improved access to services Community awareness Understanding of Understanding of to school Public service Improved parenting skills Increased program referrals 1,000 families served Improved monitoring of Improved involvement attendance and valuing of youth More available services schools Conference held and transportation to schools Improved attachment enhanced truancy process truancy system announcements distributed 11 Figure 3: Results of Initial (First Year) Administration of Working Together Context 3.5 Structure 3.3 3.3 .- lu E Membership 0 Process 3.0 Results 3.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Score Note: n=82 responses. A score of l=negative, 4=positive. about youth and families are problematic memorandum of understanding. In addi- for certain agencies and need to be dealt tion, the collaboratives require continuing with from the start to enhance implemen- education and need to be made aware of tation of the program and the ongoing the importance of involving the communi- health of the coalition. As part of the plan- ty at large-particularly parents, youth, ning process, collaboratives should iden- tify the roles, responsibilities, and under- standings among cooperating agencies and formalize agreements by using a Figure 4: Partners Identified as Necessary to Reduc- ing Truancy I Law enforcement, youth serv- ices, juvenile justice agen- cies, schools, social services, community-based organizations I Truancy center, mental health organizations 0 State attorney, faith-based organizations, hospital, parents I Business community, youth, social organizations Note: n=18 respondents. the faith community, and local businesses. Parents and youth are required to be in- volved, and the faith and local business communities are key for volunteer, finan- cial, and in-kind support through services. CFFC (as national evaluator) offers facili- tation and action planning services to collaboratives. Such activities can greatly Figure 5: Response to Question Regarding the Pres- ence of Necessary Partners I All present I Missing key members 0 Do not know Note: n=17 respondents. benefit these and future projects that are seated within a collaborative and multi- agency setting; sites will be encouraged to use this service in the future. Overall Assessment TRDP’s first year has yielded a strong base of information to direct the program’s fur- ther development. Almost all of the partici- pating sites need much more time, support, and training than anticipated to facilitate a successful start, both in program imple- mentation and development and in mainte- nance of the community-based collabora- tives directing the program. Access to data, particularly across system lines (e.g., schools, courts, law enforce- ment), continues to require evaluation staff assistance in a variety of ways. To ensure that the data collected are consis- tent across sites and that they reflect the context in which the program exists, on- going contact is crucial-especially site- based support on at least a semiannual basis. The national evaluators can facili- tate information sharing and formalized agreements that might not otherwise occur so readily. In addition, implementing culturally ap propriate practices and obtaining family involvement continue to be troublesome for the sites. OJJDP has encouraged sites to use resources that can assist in devel- oping strategies for improving practices in these areas. Early in the project, the evaluation re- vealed commonalities in structure and planning processes among the seven par- ticipating programs, such as the existence of an extensive startup period and a strong community collaborative. After examining initial outcome data, evalua- tors will make available implications for best practices in the fall of 2001. Evalu- ators are tracking outcome data that focus on five target areas: student demo- graphics, family demographics, a needs assessment, a service plan, and quarterly outcomes. Specific outcomes being meas- ured include improvement in attendance and academics and reductions in office referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and involvement with the juvenile justice department. It is expected that the lessons learned from the diverse TRDP programs about establishing and maintaining effective community-based leadership and 12 interventions will guide future work by OJJDP and communities to prevent truancy. Conclusion Chronic truancy has long been identified as a key predictor for negative outcomes in education, employment, and social suc- cess. The correlates of chronic truancy continue to be holistic in nature and in- clude family, school, economic, and student variables. Several promising pro- grams are now in existence and, with the support of OJJDP, are making significant headway against the truancy problem. Programs such as ACT Now and TRDP build on the strengths and resources within local communities to target truan- cy from a "carrot and stick perspective. Students and families need both the incentive to attend school (the carrot) and meaningful consequences for chronic nonattendance (the stick). Truancy is a violation of State law as a status offense for the youth and educational neglect for the parent; addressing the underlying issues is necessary for long-term behav- ior change. Underlying issues that have been identified by these projects include family poverty, less education, substance abuse, cultural variation in the valuing of public education, and pressures on the youth to work and provide childcare for younger siblings. Implementing a successful, sustainable truancy reduction project has its share of challenges, as illustrated by ACT Now and TRDP. Gaining consensus among schools to adopt a uniform definition of truancy and a standardized approach to the increase in school absences is a signif- icant challenge. In addition, gaining coop eration from diverse key community play- ers, such as law enforcement, courts, social services, parents, and community- based organizations, can be a challenging and timeconsuming task. Finally, imple- menting effective, datadriven methods for tracking both the occurrence of truan- cy and the impact of programs on key indicators of success is a struggle for many programs. Endnotes 1. The definition of truancy is usually established by school district policy and may vary across districts. For the pur- poses of this Bulletin, truancy is generally defined as an unexcused absence from school or class (i.e., an absence without the proper approval of appropriate school officials). 2. Generally, absentee rates are highest in public schools in the innercity where larger numbers of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (Heaviside et al., 1998). (Higher truancy rates general- ly correlate with poverty; higher rates of free and reduced-price lunches are typi- cally used as evidence of poverty.) 3. This series of long-term studies, which have followed thousands of at-risk youth in three cities for more than a decade, is designed to improve the understanding of serious delinquency, violence, and drug use by examining how youth develop within the context of family, school, peers, and community. For more details about this program, visit ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd. 4. Retrieved from the Web at www.sc.co. pima.az.us. 5. Seven school districts (not including the Tucson Unified School District) partic- ipate in ACT Now. Of these, the four most populous were selected to participate in the evaluation of ACT Now: Amphitheater, Sunnyside, Marana, and Flowing Wells. All four are located in the Tucson metro- politan area, and their total student en- rollment represents approximately 77 per- cent of the Pima County public school students who are not enrolled in the Tucson Unified School District. 6. Because school attendance is monitored by an attendance clerk at each school, attendance clerks and local school admin- istrators were key figures in program implementation. 7. The affidavit certifying the truant stu- dent's attendance record is a critical component of the prosecution strategy because it obviates the necessity of hav- ing school officials testify at court pro- ceedings in each case. This plan repre- sented a major inducement to school administrators, who did not relish the notion that staff time could be taken up with frequent court appearances. 8. Prior to the involvement of CJA, partici- pating service providers were asked to submit information to PCAO verifying that referred parents had successfully com- pleted the program and thus complied with the terms of the diversion agree- ment. Later, CJA monitored compliance with the terms of the diversion contract. 9. To order this publication, contact APRl's Research Unit at 703-549-4253 or visit its Web site, wwwmdaa-apri.org/apri/ Research-and-Development/Research- and-Development.htm1. 10. The number of referrals to various services does not represent the number of youth referred to such services. Youth often are referred to multiple services; however, referral data were only available in aggregate form, making it impossible to determine the actual number of youth who received services. 11. The 1997-98 school year marks the first year in which recidivism data were tracked. 12. Ideally, the evaluation would consider pretest truancy from the 1995-96 school year; however, reliable truancy data for that year were unavailable. 13 13. Weed and Seed is a community-based strategy combining law enforcement and human services to improve communities by reducing crime and revitalizing commu- nity involvement and resources. Weed and Seed requires an active and participating collaborative group, on which the grant program can theoretically build. 14. YOEM, which was a joint initiative of OJJDP and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education, focused on truants, dropouts, and youth who were fearful of attending school, sus- pended or expelled, or in need of help to become reintegrated into mainstream schools from juvenile detention and cor- rectional settings. 15. The exclusion of two sites was due to site-based difficulties with startup and interviewee accessibility. References Baker, M.L. 2000. Evaluation of the Truancy Reduction Demonstration hgram: Interim Report. Denver, CO: Colorado Foundation for Families and Children. Bell, A.J., Rosen, L.A., and Dynlacht, D. 1994. Truancy intervention. The Journal of Research and Development in Education 57(3):203-211. Bernat, F.P. 1996. Survey Evaluation for the Governor’s Division for Children: State Truancies and Unexcused Absences. Final Report. Phoenix, AZ: Governor’s Division for Children. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2001. A Profile of the Working Poor, 1999. Report 947. Washington, DC: US. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Catalano, ER., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D., Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998. Com- prehensive community- and school-based interventions to prevent antisocial be- havior. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications, Inc. Dryfoos, J.G. 1990. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. New York, NY Oxford University Press. Dynarski, M., and Gleason, P. 1999. How Can We Help? Lessons From Federal Dropout Prevention Programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, lnc. Garry, E.M. 1996. Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of Problems. Bulletin. Washington, D.C. US. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention. Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R. 1995. Risk Focused Prevention: Using the Social Development Strategy. Seattle, WA De- velopmental Research and Programs, Inc. Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., and Farris, E. 1998. Violence and Discipline Problems in US. Public Schools: 1996-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Edu- cation, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Howell, J.C. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T. 1995. Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Ingersoll, S., and LeBoeuf, D. 1997. Reach- ing Out to Youth Out of the Education Main- stream. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of- fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Kelley, B.T., Loeber, R., Keenan, K., and DeLamarte, M. 1997. Developmental Path- ways in Boys’ Disruptive and Delinquent Behauior. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of- fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. 2000. Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology 12(4):737-762. Morley, E., and Rossman, S.B. 1997. Helping At-Risk Youth: Lessons From Community-Based Initiatives. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. National Center for Juvenile Justice. 1996. Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics, 1990-1994. Pittsburgh, PA National Center for Juvenile Justice. Omni Institute. 1992. Working Together: A Profile of Collaboration. Denver, CO: Omni Institute. Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., Snyder, H., Poole, R., and Tierney, N. Forthcoming. Juvenile Court Statistics 1998. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Robins, L.N., and Ratcliff, K.S. 1978. Long- Range Outcomes Associated With School Truancy. Washington, DC: Public Health Service. Roderick, M., Chiong, J., Arney, M., Da- Costa, K., Stone, M., Villarreal-Sosa, L., and Waxman, E. 1997. Habits Hard To Break: A New Look at Truancy in Chicago5 Public High Schools. Research in Brief. Chicago, IL University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration. Rohrman, D. 1993. Combating truancy in our schools-a community effort. Bulletin 76(549):40-51. Schorr, L.B. 1997. Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods To Rebuild America. New York, Ny: Doubleday. Sigmon, J.N., Nugent, M.E., and Engelhardt- Greer, S. 1999. Abolish Chronic Truancy Now Diversion Program: Evaluation Report. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute. Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1995. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. US. Department of Education, 1993. Condi- tions of Education: 1993 (lndicators 32 and 34). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 14 This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 1999-MU-MU4014 from the Office of Juvenile Justlce and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De- partment of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Acknowledgments Myriam L. Baker, Ph.D., is a private consultant specializing in development and evaluation of programs for at-risk youth and a primary consultant to the Colorado Foundation for Families and Children in its evaluation of the Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program. Jane Nady Sigmon, Ph.D., is former Director of Research at American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and M. Elaine Nugent is cur- rent Director of Research at APRI. Justice. Photographs pages 2 and 8 copyright 0 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.; photographs pages 4 and 13 copyright 0 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc. quency Prevention is a component of the 06 fice of Justice Progmms, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau Share With Your Colleagues L of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse Publication ReprinVFeedback P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 80W38-4736 301-519-5600 (fax) E-mail: tellncjrsa ncjrs.org 15 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Ofice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, DC 2053 I Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID DOJ/OJJDP PERMIT NO. G-91 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Curfew: An Answer to Juvenile Delinquency and Victimization? Traditionally, the determination of a minor’s curfew has been considered to be a family issue, within the parental purview, rather than a matter to be de- termined by government. Nevertheless, public curfews have been enacted and enforced throughout the Nation’s his- tory in reaction to increased juvenile delinquency, decreased parental supervision, and other social trends. Recent increases in juvenile crime and victimization have prompted local communities in many States to once again consider evening curfews (e.g., from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on school days and from midnight to 6 a.m. on non- school days) as a viable means to en- hance the safety of the community and its children. Although most curfew ordinances apply to juveniles under 16 years of age, some include 16 and 17-year-olds. This Bulletin explores developments in curfew ordinances, legal issues related to curfews, how jurisdictions have responded to legal challenges, the elements of sound community-based curfew programs, and examples of a range of curfew programs and services from seven jurisdictions. In a recent study of curfew ordi- nances in the 200 largest U.S. cities (population of 100,000 or greater in 1992), Ruefle and Reynolds found a dramatic surge in curfew legislation during the first half of the 1990’s. Of the 200 cities surveyed, 93 (47 percent) had curfews in effect on January 1, 1990. Between January 1990 and the spring of 1995, an additional 53 of these 200 cities (27 percent) enacted juvenile curfew ordinances, bringing the total of those with curfew laws to 146 (73 percent). During the same period, 37 of the 93 cities with an existing curfew ordi- nance revised that legislation.’ Legal Challenges The question of curfews has raised a variety of legal issues and divided numerous communities, as the follow- ing sample of newspaper headlines illustrates: “The Trouble With Curfews,” “Cities Deciding That It’s Time for Teen Curfews,“ “Curfew Not a Good Idea,” “Curfew Needs To Be Stronger,” “Limit- ing Kids’ Time on the Streets Elicits Both Relief and Resentment.”z Differ- ences in opinion have led individuals and civil rights organizations in many communities to challenge the legality of juvenile curfew ordinances. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the most vocal opponent, has chal- lenged the constitutionality of juvenile curfew ordinances in jurisdictions across the country, either directly or by providing assistance to individuals who wish to test such laws in court. Legal challenges to the constitutional- ity of curfew ordinances are most often From the Administrator With juvenile crime on the rise in com- munities across the country, increasing numbers of city and county jurisdictions are passing curfew ordinances, either independent of an overall anticrime and community safety program or as one component of such a program.The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention has seen a growing trend of these ordinances being accom- panied by comprehensive, community- based curfew enforcement programs that are receiving strong support from law enforcement and citizens alike. This Bulletin provides an overview of the legal challenges to curfew and pre- sents profiles of seven jurisdictions with comprehensive curfew enforcement programs that both address the factors that place these youth at risk for delin- quency and victimization and promote the development of healthy behavior. Comprehensive curfew enforcement programs often bring together the law enforcement community and juvenile and family court judges with represen- tatives from the social services and the education, recreation, religious, and medical communities. This collaborative, community-based approach to curfew enforcement has demonstrated that juvenile delinquency and victimization can be decreased when communities work together to implement a compre- hensive curfew program. I am pleased to provide you with this information on curfews, from the court challenges to the success stories, and hope it will assist in your local decision- making process on whether and how to use a juvenile curfew. Shay Bilchik Administrator based on the lst, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. The fourth amendment pro- tects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures and has been inter- preted to include protection against un- reasonable stopping and detainment of individuals. The fifth amendment guaran- tees citizens the right to due process un- der the law. The ninth amendment has been interpreted to include a right to privacy, including the right to family au- tonomy3 The 14th amendment protects persons against the deprivation of their liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel, which is em- bodied in the privileges and immunities clause. In 1975, the first Federal case concem- ing the constitutionality of juvenile cur- fews was heard by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In Bykofsky v. Borough ofMiddletown, the court upheld a juvenile curfew that was challenged on the grounds that it violated juveniles’ 1st and 14th amendment rights and encroached upon parents’ rights to raise their children, which is embodied in the 9th amendment and in the due pro- cess and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment? In its opinion, the court found that the regulations on juve- niles’ 14th amendment due process rights were ”constitutionally permissible.” The court further declared that the curfew ordinance did not suppress or impermis- sibly regulate juveniles’ right to freedom of speech or parents’ rights to raise their children as they saw fit. The court stated, “The parents’ constitutionally protected interest.. . which the ordinance infringes only minimally, is outweighed by the Borough’s interest in protecting immature minors. . . .’15 Fourteen years later, in 1989, Simbi Waters challenged a juvenile curfew ordi- nance in the District of Columbia on the grounds that it violated her first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights! The U.S. Dis- trict Court for the District of Columbia, in Wafers v. Barry, found the juvenile curfew law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the first and fifth amend- ment rights of juveniles in the District: “The right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one’s friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all-and to do so whenever one pleases is an integral component of life in a free and ordered ~ociety.”~ However, the court did not find that the curfew violated the fourth amendment rights of District juveniles: “So long as the officer could reasonably have believed that the individual looked ‘young,’ the search, seizure or arrest would take place on the basis of probable cause and no Fourth Amendment viola- tion would occur.”SAlthough the district court invalidated this particular curfew, in July 1995 the District of Columbia en- acted another juvenile curfew ordinance modeled after one enacted in Dallas, Texas, that had survived constitutional scrutiny by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1993.9 The seminal issue of the State’s au- thority to restrict the constitutional rights of minors is consistently raised in juvenile curfew cases. In the Bykofsky case cited above, the court held that “the conduct of minors may be constitution- ally regulated to a greater extent than those of adults.”1° The U.S. Court of Ap peals for the Fifth Circuit, in upholding the Dallas curfew, applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hodgson v. Minnesota, which held that a parental notification requirement of the State’s abortion statute passed con- stitutional muster because States have ”. . . a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of [their] young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely.”’l The Strict Scrutiny Test In order to pass constitutional muster, laws that impinge on fundamental consti- tutional rights must pass a two-pronged strict scrutiny test that requires jurisdic- tions to (1) demonstrate that there is a compelling State interest and (2) narrow- ly tailor the means to achieve the law’s objective. The Dallas curfew provides an excellent example of an ordinance that has been held by a Federal court to sat- isfy both prongs of the strict scrutiny test. The Dallas City Council adopted its curfew ordinance in 1991 after hearings that included testimony on increased in- cidences of late-night juvenile violence. Challenged by the ACLU, Dallas’ curfew ordinance was upheld in 1993 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Qutb v. Stra~ss.~~ The Fifth Circuit held that the Dallas curfew satisfied the strict scrutiny test because the city had dernon- strated a compelling State interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimiza- tion and because the ordinance was prop erly aimed, that is, narrowly tailored to “. . . allow the city to meet its stated goals while respecting the rights of the affected minors.”13 A subsequent appeal was re- fused by the Supreme Court of the United States without comment in May 1994.14 However, this ruling neither guarantees protection from future constitutional le- gal challenges to curfews in other circuits under the provisions of the U.S. Constitu- tion or State constitutions, nor forecloses challenges based on nonconstitutional grounds. Jurisdictions that seek to enact curfew laws may want to examine how Dallas laid the groundwork needed to pass the strict scrutiny test. Data on juvenile crime and victimization helped meet the cornpelling State interest test. The city provided the following statistical informati~n:’~ Juvenile delinquency increases pro- portionally with age between the ages of 10 and 16 years. In 1989, Dallas recorded 5,160 juvenile arrests, and in 1990, there were 5,425 juvenile arrests, including 40 murders, 91 sex offenses, 233 robberies, and 230 aggravated assaults. From Janu- ary through April 1991, juveniles were arrested for 21 murders, 30 sex of- fenses, 128 robberies, 107 aggravated assaults, and an additional 1,042 crimes against property. The most likely time for the occur- rence of murders by juveniles was between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m.; the most likely place was in apartments and apartment parking lots and on streets and highways. Aggravated assaults by juveniles were most likely to occur between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. Rapes were most likely to occur be- tween l a.m. and 3 a.m., and 16 per- cent of rapes occurred on public streets and highways. Thirty-one percent of robberies occurred on public streets and highways. The Court relied on these data in holding that the City of Dallas provided sufficient evidence to establish that the ordinance was in keeping with the State's compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization. Second, the Dallas legislation was nar- rowly tailored to address the specific needs enumerated by the jurisdiction by the least restrictive means possible. The Dallas curfew was applied to youth under the age of 17 and in effect from 11 p.m. through 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and from midnight to 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The statute exempted juveniles who were: Accompanied by an adult. Engaged in activities related to inter- state commerce or protected by the first amendment. Traveling to or from work. Responding to an emergency. Married. Attending a supervised school, reli- gious, or recreational activity. The Fifth Circuit found. in Oufb v. Strauss, that the exemptions under the Dallas ordinance, which permitted juve- niles to exercise their fundamental rights and remain in public, demonstrated that the ofdinance was narrowly tailored to meet the city's legitimate objectives. Other challenges to juvenile curfews have been based on the concepts of vagueness and overbreadth. A statute is void for vagueness if it is too general and its ". . . standards result in erratic and arbitrary application based on indi- vidual impressions and personal predilec- tions."I6 A statute that broadly restricts fundamental liberties when less restric- tive means are available may be void on the grounds of overbreadth. Therefore, when constructing juvenile curfew ordi- nances, in addition to considering consti- tutional issues that involve fundamental rights, jurisdictions should ensure the legislation is both precise in its language and limited to necessary restrictions. In addition to constitutional and struc- tural challenges to juvenile curfews, juris- dictions enacting curfew laws should also bear in mind the core requirement of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended, which addresses the deinstitu- tionalization of status offender and non- offender juveniles @SO)." In general, this .- JJDP Act core requirement prohibits a status offender (Le,, a juvenile who has committed an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult, such as truancy or curfew violations) or nonof- fender (Le., a dependent or neglected child) from being held in secure deten- tion or confinement. However, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion (OJJDP) regulations allow detention for brief periods in a juvenile detention facility-not to exceed 24 hours exclusive of weekends and holidays-necessary for pre- or postcourt appearance, processing, release to a parent or guardian, or trans- fer to court or an appropriate nonsecure facility. The statute also makes excep- tions that allow the detention or confine- ment of status offenders who violate a valid court order or who violate State law provisions prohibiting the possession of a handgun. Status and nonoffender juve- niles cannot be detained or confined in an adult jail or lockup for any length of time. To comply with the DSO core requirement of the JJDP Act Formula Grants Program, and to reduce the bur- den on police, Dallas and many other cities have established comprehensive, community-based curfew programs that provide local sites, such as community and recreation centers, where police of- ficers can bring curfew violators for tem- porary detention pending release to their parents or other appropriate disposition. These sites provide an atmosphere conducive to investigation, processing, prerelease counseling, and planning for appropriate followup services. Representative Curfew Programs Local governments have enacted juve- nile curfews pursuant to their general police powers or State statutes specifi- cally authorizing such ordinances. The seven cities whose curfew programs are discussed below enacted their ordi- nances pursuant to specific authorizing State legislation. ally view a juvenile curfew ordinance as an effective means to combat late evening crime. However, curfews are also intend- ed to protect youth from becoming vic- tims of crime. The curfew ordinances described below were enacted in the con- text of a comprehensive, community- Law enforcement professionals gener- based program designed to protect both the community and the juvenile from vic- timization and to serve as a constructive intervention against developing patterns of delinquency. Each of the jurisdictions described below collected statistical data on juve- nile crime and victimization prior to pass- ing a curfew ordinance. This activity also laid a foundation for formulating a curfew ordinance that addressed the jurisdic- tion's unique juvenile crime and victim- ization problems. Although juvenile crime is not restricted to evening hours, the data analysis done by these cities demon- strated that their rates of juvenile crime and victimization were serious enough to warrant a carefully crafted evening curfew program. unique and innovative approach to ad- dressing the problem of juvenile crime and victimization through a curfew ordi- nance. The approaches demonstrate a range of community partnerships and nonpunitive strategies designed to pro- mote early intervention to prevent the development of delinquent behavior and to address the issues of parental respon- sibility, discipline, and family dysfunc- tion. The strategies have been credited with helping to prevent juvenile crime and victimization and repeated curfew violations while providing protection and safety to the community. While the comprehensive, cornmunity- based curfew programs implemented by the seven cities employ a variety of strat- egies, each program includes one or more of the following common elements: Creation of a dedicated curfew center or use of recreation centers and churches to receive juveniles who have been picked up by the police for violating curfew. Staffing of curfew centers with social service professionals and community volunteers. Each of these seven cities has its own Intervention, in the form of referrals to social service providers and coun- seling classes, for the juveniles and their families. Procedures for repeat offenders, including fines, counseling, or sen- tences to community service. Recreation and jobs programs. -34 Antidrug and antigang programs. Hotlines for followup services and crisis intervention. The cornerstone of each of the seven programs is creative community involve- ment that works to transform the juvenile curfew from a reactive, punitive response to a proactive intervention against the root causes of juvenile delinquency and victimization. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the key fea- tures of the juvenile curfew ordinances enacted by the seven jurisdictions pro- filed in this bulletin, including the excep tions adopted by each jurisdiction that reduce the potential for successful court challenge on constitutional grounds. A summary of the statutory provisions re- lating to curfews in U.S. cities with a population of more than 100,000 can be found in the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics--1994, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.I8 Dallas, Texas In developing a juvenile curfew for Dal- las, government officials and the police department worked together to create an appropriate and effective curfew pro- gram. The curfew, which went into effect on May 1,1994, applies to all youth under the age of 17. Prior to the effective date of the curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department engaged in a media campaign to promote curfew awareness. The multi- component campaign included public service announcements on radio, posters in English and Spanish that were distrib- uted at recreation centers and at public schools, and a wellcovered press confer- ence. Also, 1 week before the curfew took effect, warning fliers were handed out by police officers to youth in public during the hours of the curfew.1s When Dallas police apprehend juvenile curfew violators, they may give them a verbal warning, take them home, issue a ticket with a fine as high as $500, or take them into custody. In cases of repeated curfew violations, a child's parents may be fined up to $500. Business establish- ments may be cited for allowing minors to remain on their premises after curfew hours. In addition to these enforcement mechanisms, the Dallas curfew program features comprehensive youth programs that address juvenile crime and victim- ization, including Law Enforcement Explorers, a School Liaison Unit, Law Enforcement Teaching Students (LETS), supervised midnight basketball (with a curfew exception on tournament nights), and a Police Athletic League (PAL)?O During the first 3 months of curfew implementation, warnings and citations were issued to curfew offenders, and eight tickets were written to adults for permit- ting curfew violations. No arrests were made for curfew violations, but 15 juve- niles were arrested and taken into cus- tody on other charges. The Dallas Police Department conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of the juvenile curfew after 3 months of enforcement. The De- partment found that juvenile victimiza- tion during curfew hours dropped 17.7 I Table 1: Statutory Provisions of Juvenile Curfew Ordinances in Seven Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Age (years) Weekday Times Weekend Times Parental Fines: Discretionary' Dallas, TX Under 17 11 p.m.4 a.m. 12 a.m.-6 a.m. Up to $500 Phoenix, AZ 15 or under 10 p.m.4 a.m. 10 p.m.4 a.m. up to $75 16 and 17 12 a.m.-5 a.m. 12 a.m.-5 a.m. up to $75 Chicago, IL Under 17 10:30 p.m.4 a.m. 11 p.m.4 a.m. $200-$500 New Orleans, LA Under 17 8 p.m.4 a.m., 11 p.m.4 a.m. $500 and/or serve 60 hours of September-May community service at discretion 9 p.m.4 a.m., of judge; $23 court fee per ticket. June-August Denver, CO Under 18 11 p.m.-5 a.m. 12 a.m.4 a.m. None' North Little Rock, AR 17 or under 10 p.m.4 a.m. 12 a.m.4 a.m. Fine for second violation, but suspended for 1 year if no further curfew violations occur. Jacksonville, FL Under 18 11 p.m.4 a.m. 12 a.m.-6 a.m. None 1 Note: Fines in many of these jurisdictions also apply to proprietors of business establishments who knowingly permit a minor to remain on the premises after curfew. 2Youth and parents who choose not to participate in an assigned diversion program, or who fail to complete such a program, may be assessed a fine. percent, from 1,950 during the period from May to July 1993, to 1,604 during the same period in 1994. Further, juvenile ar- rests during curfew hours decreased 14.6 percent, from 294 during the period from May to July 1993, to 251 during the same period in 1994. These initial statistics in- dicate that the efforts of the Dallas cur- few enforcement program have reduced juvenile crime and victimization.21 Phoenix, Arizona In Phoenix, a multifaceted approach has been developed to implement the city's curfew ordinance. A review of the city's original curfew legislation, enacted in 1968, found it ambiguous and unen- forceable. New legislation was enacted in 1992, and a partnership was established between the Phoenix Police Department and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Libraries (PRL).p The curfew ordi- nance is designed to impact crimes in which the suspect, victim, or both is a juvenile. PRL allows the Phoenix Police Depart- ment to use four of the city's recreation centers as reception facilities for juvenile curfew violators. Once paperwork is pro- cessed by police officers, the juveniles are supervised by recreation specialists until their parents arrive. The administra- tive requirements for police officers are kept to a minimum in order to allow offi- cers to return sooner to patrol duties. When a curfew violation is charged, the juvenile and the parents have the op tion of attending a diversion program that includes classes in parenting, interper- sonal communication, conflict resolution training, and community service. When the police department receives notifica- tion that the juvenile and parents have completed the program, the charge is dis- missed. If the diversion program is not completed, a petition is filed in juvenile court, where the outcomes can include a fine for the juvenile, counseling for both the juvenile and the family, and commu- nity service. A parental responsibility provision in the curfew law could also result in a fine to the parents. PRL personnel conduct postdiver- sion followup contacts with curfew viola- tors and their families to determine if ad- ditional referrals to other agencies, such as health and social services, are needed. These followup procedures have been favorably received by the community. few violators are gang members.23 The curfew ordinance provides the police with a legal basis to separate minors from gangs, at least temporarily. Gang members are taken to the reception facility, where they receive special coun- seling and exposure to positive alterna- tives to gang affiliation. The Phoenix Police Department reports statistics that bear out the fact that the curfew appears to be working. A comparison made since the citywide implementation of the cur- few program in May 1993 showed a 10- percent decrease in juvenile arrests for violent crimes (homicide, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault) during the 11-month period from June 1993 through April 1994 as compared with the period from June 1992 through April 1993.% Twenty-one percent of Phoenix's cur- Table 2: Exceptions to Juvenile Curfew Ordinances in Seven Jurisdictions Attending Interstate School or a Commerce/ First Travel Religious or Sidewalk Adult Travel Amendment To and Emergency/ Married Supervised Bordering Jurisdiction Escort Activities' Activities2 From Work Necessity Juvenile Activity Residence'' Dallas, TX d d d d d d d Phoenix. Az d d d Chicago, IL d d d d New Orleans, LA d d d Denver, CO d d d d d d North Little Rock, AR d d d d d d Jacksonville, FL d d d d d d d 1 Interstate business or travel activities that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. 2 Participation in activities that are protected by the first amendment, such as meetings or rallies. 3 Presence on a sidewalk that may be considered a public area yet borders a home or other residence of the juvenile. Community leaders and parents strongly support the curfew ordinance because of its comprehensive, commu- nity-based character. According to the Phoenix Police Department, the ordi- nance is an effective component of Phoenix's citywide crime prevention and reduction program. In addition to the cur- few enforcement program, Phoenix has strengthened its commitment to crime prevention and reduction through com- munity policing, newly enacted weapon laws, and police-led programs in elemen- tary and junior high schools. Examples of these programs include Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)-developed with funds from the US. Departments of Justice and Educa- tion, with major contributions from the private sector-and Gang Recognition and Education Awareness Training (GREAT), initiated by the Phoenix Police Department with funds provided by the US. Department of the Treasury. The Police Department's Cease Violence program-a unique partnership with other city agencies, the private sector (Motorola), and various elementary and junior and senior high schools-employs traditional and nontraditional methods to address the crime problem. This program produced a video on gang and teen pres- sures entitled "Wake-Up,'' geared to youth 7 to 17 years of age. Another Police De- partment program, Project Interact, seeks to promote better relationships between at-risk youth and the department. In monthly 90-minute workshops, patrol officers meet with youth to share infor- mation and ideas, with the goal of estab- lishing a code of conduct for both officers and youth. The program is facilitated by a police supervisor; students attend at a ratio of two students to one officer.25 Chicago, Illinois Chicago passed its first curfew ordi- nance in July 1948. It has been amend- ed several times, most recently in June 1992. In April 1993, the Chicago Police Department initiated the Chicago Altema- tive Police Strategy (CAPS) program. CAPS is a community policing initiative that started in 5 of Chicago's police dis- tricts and is now operating in all 20. In 1994, the Chicago Police Department's Bureau of Investigative Services sup ported an experimental research project, "Operation Timeout," a summer curfew project under the direction and manage- ment of the commander of a 20-member Youth Division Strike Force. The Fourth Police District CAPS site aggressively implemented Operation Timeout by get- ting community support for sending cur- few enforcement teams of officers from the Department's School Patrol Unit into targeted areas within the fourth district with a single mission: to enforce the city's curfew ordinance vigorously.26 The Operation Timeout curfew en- forcement program is designed to reduce juvenile crime and victimization and to foster communication between the Patrol Division, the Youth Division, and the com- munity. To support the program, the Chi- cago Police Department's Neighborhood Relations sergeants work with communi- ties to prevent curfew violations. When special events are held, for example, they encourage sponsoring organizations to comply with curfew hours when develop ing the event schedule. The city advocates a "no-tolerance" policy for curfew violators through ag- gressive enforcement and the required involvement of a parent or guardian when a juvenile is picked up for a cur- few violation. The specialized curfew enforcement teams utilize "Care-0-Vans'' to pick up curfew violators. Teams using the van process all curfew violators in the district on a given evening, including those picked up by beat patrol officers. This approach reduces the downtime of beat patrol officers, who can turn over the curfew violators to the team shortly after they are apprehended and return immediately to beat patrol duty. First- time offenders are returned to their homes, and a parent or guardian is issued a warning notice. Parents or guardians of a first-time curfew violator may also be charged with "contributing to the delin- quency of a minor" if it is determined that they ". . . knowingly or willfully permitted, caused, aided, abetted, or encouraged such child to commit a violation of this or any ordinance" and fined $200 to $500. Repeat offenders are taken to the Chi- cago Police Department's Fourth District station. Parents are required to pick up their child, are issued a nontraffic citation for the ordinance violation, and are re- quired to appear in court to answer the complaint. Children whose parents are working, cannot be reached, or are un- willing to pick up their children are re- turned home by district personnel. A followup investigation is conducted when the officer is unable to locate the parent at the time of the curfew violation, and the parent is issued a citation. Parents who refuse to appear in court or refuse to pay a fine may have a judgment entered against them. For the parents of repeat curfew violators, special assistance such as parenting classes and joint counseling sessions may be provided. In addition, parents of "children requiring authorita- tive intervention" under State law may be given assistance through court-appointed social service agencies. The Fourth District reports that a comparison of data from 1993 to 1994 demonstrated a decrease in the number of serious juvenile crimes reported. The most notable decreases were in burglar- ies (from 304 in 1993 to 269 in 1994), ve- hicle theft (from 255 in 1993 to 177 in 1994), and theft (from 522 in 1993 to 177 in 1994). Operation Timeout appears to be an effective curfew initiative, and com- munity support for its continuation re- mains high. As a result of the success of the Fourth District program, four addi- tional police districts have been added to Operation Timeout. All 20 police districts in Chicago are expected to become a part of Operation Timeout in the near future. New Orleans, Louisiana Based on an assessment of juvenile delinquency in New Orleans, a compre- hensive and collaborative prevention strategy was initiated by Mayor Marc Morial. A dusk-to-dawn curfew ordi- nance was part of the Morial Adminis- tration Crime Initiative (MAC0 that began in May 1994. To manage and implement the curfew program, the city opened the Central Curfew Center (CCC), which is staffed with trained professionals from government agencies and the religious and medical communities. The sheriff's office assigned 30 deputies and several other staff to CCC and provided 15 two- man units to patrol the streets. Each night the New Orleans Police Department has more than 50 police officers on the streets and 5 to 6 officers from the Juve- nile Bureau onsite at CCC. A local group of ministers, All Congregations Together, has several ministers at CCC each night to counsel juveniles and their parents or guardians on the ramifications of the curfew violation. Also on duty at the 6b -L center to provide counseling are staff from the Louisiana State University Medi- cal Center’s Department of Psychiatry and from the City of New Orleans Tru- ancy Center. In addition, a 24-hour curfew hotline has been set up to respond to questions about the curfew policy and its enforcement?’ Curfew violators brought to the CCC are screened by counselors, and their parents or guardians are contacted. Par- ents are required to pick up their children at the center and to participate in coun- seling sessions with trained volunteers. Parents of repeat offenders are issued a court summons and risk being fined for failure to keep their children from violat- ing the curfew. These steps are designed to help promote and support dialog be- tween parent and child, establish paren- tal accountability, and set new ground rules within the home. Summer youth programs are a key component of MACI. A $500,000 city fund- ing reallocation was provided to the New Orleans Recreation Department (NORD) to increase summer programs such as evening swimming and volleyball. The number of NORD summer camps in- creased from 17 to 41, serving more than 100,000 youth. The number of swimming pools increased from 4 to 14. Addition- ally, the city created 1,300 new summer jobs for youth under a local public- private partnership and also received $1.8 million in Federal funding from AmeriCorp’s Youth Action Corps to pro- vide year-round employment for youth in local education, park, and recreation programs.28 The combination of curfew, the sum- mer jobs program, and the revitaliza- tion of recreation programs resulted in a 27-percent reduction in juvenile crime during curfew hours in 1994, compared with the previous year.2g The crimes most significantly reduced were armed robbery, down 33 percent, and auto theft, down 42 percent. New Orleans Sheriff Charles Foti calls the curfew pro- gram ”. . . a coordinated effort, of unprec- edented proportions, between private and public agencies across the City to a unified end-to reduce crime and protect the young people of this City” and reports that the program “. . . has earned the un- qualified support of the New Orleans community.”30 Denver, Colorado During the summer of 1993, a group of 2,500 citizens in Denver met in a Safe City Summit to discuss their concerns about youth crime, violence, and safety. Their recommendations included estab- lishing a program to authorize police to take youth in violation of Denver’s amended curfew law to a safe place and increasing parental involvement with and responsibility for children under the age of 18. Mayor Wellington E. Webb re- sponded to the citizens’ recommenda- tions with a 10-point Safe City Plan, one component of which is the SafeNite After Curfew (SafeNite) program, developed in collaboration with community groups, parents, police, recreation, and social services staff. SafeNite, which was launched in July 1994, provides a safe place-either a recreation center or a church-where youth found on the streets during curfew hours are taken by police to wait for a parent or guardian.31 Youth taken to SafeNite locations are processed and served a citation from police officers onsite. SafeNite staff con- tact the youth’s parents or guardians to pick them up. The parent may also re- ceive a ticket, at police discretion. The youth and parent are seen onsite by a professional counselor who helps ad- dress family issues and obtain social services if needed. Counseling services are available on a variety of issues, as are workshops on conflict resolution and interpersonal communication skills. On nights when SafeNite sites are not in operation, curfew counselors in the municipal courtroom interview and offer diversion to the ticketed youth and their families. Currently, SafeNite locations are open Friday through Sunday. However, the program is flexible, and the days of operation may be changed to respond to shifting patterns of youth activity. For example, when youth began to gather “en masse” on nights when the SafeNite center was closed, the center’s operating schedule was altered to reflect this change. The Denver curfew program enjoys a collaborative partnership with 234 com- munity programs to which children and their families are diverted. Of these pro- grams, 80 percent are at no cost to SafeNite or to the client. (The program leverages community service providers by providing referrals and data to assist them in grant proc~rement.)~~ Through this collaboration, the curfew program has become a revolving door of informa- tion, linking “demand” with “supply” by identifying citizens’ needs, noting gaps in service for identified problems, and con- necting citizens with current resources. As indicated above, youth and par- ents are given the option of participating in an appropriate diversion program rather than going to court. If they suc- cessfully complete the program, the case is dismissed. Youth and parents who do not elect to participate in or complete a diversion program go to court and may be required to pay a fine or complete court-ordered community service. Re- peat curfew violators and/or their par- ents are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and incremental sanctions apply. These sanctions may include a court ap pearance with assessed fines, commu- nity service or a more intense diversion program, or probation status.33 Denver officials credit the SafeNite program with fostering more consistent enforcement of the city’s curfew ordi- nance and with providing a secure and safe environment for curfew violators until they are reunited with their fami- lies. The only time required of the police officer is the time needed to drive to and from the SafeNite site. The enforcement of SafeNite is credited with helping to deter graffiti, vandalism, car theft, and more violent crimes while decreasing juvenile victimization, increasing paren- tal involvement, and assisting families. Initial statistics on SafeNite from the Denver Police Department for the period from July 1994 through December 1995 are encouraging: More than 168 cases were dismissed per month, alleviating court congestion; 61 percent of the 4,676 youth served by the program and their families have completed or are in the process of completing diversion; and the recidivism rate’is down to 7 percent from 56 percent at the start of the program. The law enforcement community also believes SafeNite has contributed signifi- cantly to the 11-percent drop in serious crime during each of the first 2 years of curfew implementation. Specifically, the category of motor vehicle theft, which is often a juvenile crime, was reduced 17 percent in 1994 and 23 percent in 1995. Plans are under way to apply the SafeNite diversion model to juveniles who commit such offenses as shoplifting, petty theft, and giving false inf~rmation.~' North Little Rock, Arkansas In North Little Rock, community life was adversely affected in the late 1980's by organized juvenile gangs that traf- ficked in drugs and whose members car- ried high-powered weapons on city street comers. In 1991, the local police department, Neighborhood Watch groups, elected officials, and city admin- istrators joined together to organize a collaborative response to increased seri- ous crime in general, and juvenile crime and victimization in particular. One of their first proposals was to establish a curfew law. With strong support from dozens of neighborhood organizations, the city council passed a curfew ordi- nance in July 1991. In creating a practical and effective curfew ordinance, particu- lar attention was given to two important issues: increasing parental supervision of children and keeping the police de- partment process ~imple.3~ The North Little Rock Police Depart- ment recognized that its limited re- sources required a curfew process that was as straightforward and simple as possible. A concentrated effort was made to simplify the extensive reporting requirements for a juvenile arrest by cre- ating a 1-page form for a curfew violation that required the officer to complete just 10 items of information. When a juvenile is picked up for a curfew violation, he or she is taken to police headquarters and turned over to a juvenile officer. The ju- venile is detained in a nonsecure area of headquarters designated for curfew vio- lators while arrangements are made with a parent or guardian to return the juve- nile home following a review of the cur- few ordinance and the circumstances of the violation with the parent or guardian and the child. The North Little Rock ordi- nance provides that a juvenile's second curfew violation can result in charges against the parents. Generally, a fine is imposed but suspended for 1 year and dismissed if no further curfew violations occur. After three curfew violations, a referral to the State's Department of Human Services for consideration of a juvenile-in-need-of-services petition is required. However, such referrals have been necessary in only a few cases. Keeping curfew enforcement and pro- cessing simple has kept police support high. The North Little Rock curfew ordi- nance is a key element in a multifaceted set of solutions that are part of North Little Rock's overall community policing plan. With the cooperation of city admin- istrators, the police department was able to increase its personnel to provide addi- tional officers in the schools, facilitating the development of joint programs by the police department and the school district. Programs include a school re- source officer program to reduce in- school conflicts, school crime, truancy, and dropping out, and introduction of the DARE program for students in kin- dergarten through sixth grade. The local school district also created an alterna- tive school to provide a place to which juveniles who are truant or suspended for disruptive behavior could be brought instead of being sent home. With support from 10 corporate spon- sors, North Little Rock also instituted a supervised midnight basketball program to provide at-risk youth with an alterna- tive to being on the street. This program, which serves boys and girls ages 12 to 18, combines athletic activity with aca- demic tutoring, mentoring, and an em- ployment orientation program that covers the importance of a good work ethic, how to complete an employment application, and the development of job interview skills. The program is held at the local recreation facility, Sherman Park, on Friday and Saturday evenings from 8 p.m. to midnight. Participants are instructed to return directly home because the curfew goes into effect at midnight. On tournament nights, the pro- gram runs until 1 a.m., with a 1-hour ex- ception made to the curfew. Periodic followup checks with the recreation and police departments have indicated that participants are adhering to the program guidelines. To monitor the impact of the compre- hensive curfew enforcement program, the North Little Rock Police Department completes daily reports that track the location of curfew apprehensions, along with statistical information on age, sex, and race. Statistics from 1992, the first full year of curfew enforcement, showed a significant reduction in crimes against persons. Compared with 1991, the city experienced an average 12-percent re- duction in the categories of homicide, rape, robbery, and assault and a 10- percent reduction in b~rglaries.~~ Local law enforcement officials attribute these crime reductions in great measure to the curfew enforcement program. Based on these initial results, other jurisdictions in Arkansas have begun similar curfew enforcement programs. Jacksonville, Florida In response to high rates of juvenile crime and victimization, the City of Jack- sonville instituted a juvenile curfew ordi- nance in April 1995, giving police officers the authority to stop and question sus- pected curfew violators. When a juvenile is stopped on suspi- cion of curfew violation, the officer first determines whether he or she falls under a curfew exemption. A juvenile who is found to be in violation of the curfew may either be taken home by the officer or brought to the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC), at the discretion of the of- ficer. While each of the cities described in this bulletin provides a range of serv- ices to curfew violators, Jacksonville is one of the few cities in the country with a centralized intake and assessment fa- cility for juvenile offenders, including juvenile curfew violator^.^' JAC is a centralized, multiagency facil- ity with multidisciplinary staffing. By co- ordinating law enforcement and social, educational, and mental health services at one location, JAC provides juveniles and their families with easy access to a comprehensive range of services. By providing access to needed services at the earliest possible time, JAC hopes to provide early interventions that will avert a pattern of at-risk and delinquent behavior. Curfew violators brought to JAC are also screened to determine if they have committed additional violations that re- quire court review. Those who have are moved to the secure section of the facil- ity for further screening and assessment. Curfew violators are held in the nonsec- ure section of JAC and screened to deter- mine whether they are experiencing problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse, mental health, or family dynamics. Parents are then contacted to pick up their child. If the home situation appears too volatile and unsafe for the juvenile, a a4 temporary housing arrangement is se- cured until a further evaluation is com- pleted. Depending on the nature of the services warranted, either a letter is pre- sented to the parents recommending followup services, which they can accept or reject on a voluntary basis, or a court referral is made for a “family in need of services.” Services available include counseling, parenting training, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, treatment for mental illness, and training in family dy- namics and interpersonal communica- tion skills. Repeat curfew violators are also taken to JAC to be screened to de- termine what services may be provided the youth and their families to help ad- dress the situation. Florida State law allows local jurisdic- tions to assess both the parent and the child a $50 fine for a curfew violation. However, Jacksonville’s curfew ordi- nance did not adopt this portion of the State statute, and fines for curfew viola- tion are not levied. In support of the curfew ordinance, the Jacksonville Police Department, the Duval County Parks, Recreation, and En- tertainment Department, and the Duval County School Board provide a range of community-based delinquency preven- tion programs. One innovative program supported by all three organizations is the combined Safe, Accessible, Flexible Enrichment and Teaching for Educa- tional Achievement through Math and Science (SAFE/TEAMS) program. This multi-agency program includes teachers, recreation specialists, and school re- source officers. These officers provide guidance, counseling, mentoring, and overall program security. The SAFE/ TEAMS program is available 2 hours each school day and on Saturday morn- ings for children in Duval County’s 23 middle schools. It provides juveniles a place to receive tutoring on school work, with an emphasis on math and science, and an opportunity to participate in arts and crafts, horseback riding, field trips, clubs, recreation, and athletics. The Jacksonville PAL provides at-risk children an opportunity to interact with police officers who serve as mentors during their nonduty hours. Jacksonville has added a new dimension to its PAL program through a newly donated com- puter laboratory. The lab allows juve- niles to develop their academic and computer skills by engaging in computer games as a reward for completing their homework. PAL also offers a range of sports activities that include basketball, boxing, karate, and other activities for boys and girls between the hours of 4 p.m. and 10 p.m., 7 days a week. of Jacksonville’s comprehensive curfew program. The program has been in op- eration for less than a year, and collec- tion of data on its effectiveness and impact is ongoing. However, community support has been strong, and State At- torney Harry L. Shorstein has expressed his office’s support, stating that “The curfew program is viewed as one compo- nent of a comprehensive crime preven- tion program that can help fight juvenile delinquency and protect our youth from victimization.”38 It is too early to determine the impact Summary Curfew ordinances are in effect in a majority of the Nation’s largest cities. While curfews have been challenged in many jurisdictions on a variety of consti- tutional and other grounds, narrowly crafted ordinances designed to address specifically identified problems appear able to withstand such challenges. Statis- tical analyses of the impact of curfew ordinances on delinquency and juvenile victimization in many communities con- tinue to be conducted. The information made available by the communities high- lighted in this bulletin and by other com- munities where curfew programs have been implemented indicates that com- prehensive, community-based juvenile curfew programs are helping to reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization. It is important for communities that are enforcing curfews or considering a cur- few ordinance to keep abreast of legal developments, establish a firm founda- tion for the ordinance, and model the curfew program after community-based efforts in other jurisdictions. The initial evidence offered by the seven communities profiled in this Bulle- tin is that community-based curfew pro- grams that offer a range of services are more easily and effectively enforced, en- joy community support, and provide a greater benefit in preventing juvenile de- linquency and victimization. In addition, several of the benefits of positive inter- ventions that community-based curfew programs can provide may not be easily quantifiable-at least in the short term. Phoenix curfew staff have observed that many of the curfew violators brought into the recreation centers that function as curfew reception centers welcome the opportunity for social interaction with other youth and with program staff. Of- ten these youth seek advice, assistance, and counsel from program staff. Parents sometimes bring their son or daughter to a curfew site to seek assistance and ad- vice on the best approach for curfew compliance or to deal with other prob- lem behaviors. Communities that develop and imple- ment curfew ordinances in conjunction with programs and services designed to assist youth and families to solve under- lying individual or family problems have an opportunity to enhance positive youth development, prevent delinquency, and reduce the victimization of children. Notes 1. Ruefle, W., and Reynolds, K.M. (In press). “Keep Them at Home: Juvenile Curfew Ordinances in 200 American Cit- ies.” American Journal of Police. 2. Hood, J. (May 28, 1991). “The Trouble With Curfews,” The (Sun Francisco) Daily Journal. Potok, M. (June 6, 1994). “Cities Deciding That It’s Time for Teen Cur- fews,“ USA Today. “Curfew Not a Good Idea.” (July 6, 1994). Sentinel & Enter- prise. Kane, T. (July 14, 1994). “Curfew Needs To Be Stronger,” The Leominster (Massachusetts) Times. “Limiting Kids’ Time on the Streets Elicits Both Relief and Resentment.” (August 20,1994). Dal- las Morning News. 3. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US. 510 (1925); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US. 205 (1972). 4. Eykofsky v. Middletown, 401 ESupp. 1242 (1975). 5. Id. at 1264. 6. Waters v. Barry 71 1 ESupp. 1125 (1989). 7. Id. at 1134. 8. Id. at 1138. 9. See Qutb v. Bartlett, 11 F.3rd 494 (5th Cir. 1993). 10. Eykofsky, 401 ESupp. 1242,1254 (1975). 11. Qutb v. Bartlett, 11 E3d 488,492 (5th Cir. 1993) citing Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417,444 (1990). 12. Qutb v. Strauss, 11 E3rd 488 (5th Cir. 1993). 13. Id. at 494. 14. Qutb v. Bartlett, 114 S.Ct. 2134 (1994). 15. Qutb v. Strauss, 11 E3rd 488,494 (5th Cir. 1993). 16. Bykofsky v. Middletown, 401 ESupp. 1242, 1249 (1975) citing Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. at 684685. 17. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention Act of 1974, as amended (Public Law 93-415), Section 223(a)(12)(A). NCJ 036136. 18. Maguire, K., and Pastore, A.L. (Edi- tors). (1995). Sourcebook of Criminal Jus- tice Statistics-1994. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: USGPO, pp. 124129. NCJ 154591. 19. Click, B.R. (1994). “Statistics in Dallas Encouraging.” The Police Chief 61(12):33- 36. NCJ 159573. 20. Youth Programs for the Dallas, Texas, Police Department, 1995 (brochure). 21. Click, B.R. “Statistics in Dallas En- couraging,” p. 36. 22. Garrett, D.A., and Brewster, D. (1994). “Curfew: A New Look at an Old Tool.” The Police Chief61(12):29-33. NCJ 153037. 23. Ibid., pp. 31-33. 24. Garrett, D.A. (June 15, 1994). “Com- prehensive Review of the Citywide Juve- nile Curfew Program.” Phoenix, Ai!: City Council Report, p. 2. 25. Cherrick, J. (February 1996). Phoenix Police Department, Patrol Administra- tion. Personal communication. 26. Bartik, R.M., Commander, Youth Divi- sion, Bureau of Investigative Services, Chicago Police Department (July 25, 1995). Personal communication. 27. Wilson, P. (October 12, 1994). “Visit to Curfew Center Reveals Value of Prc+ gram.” The (New Orleans) Times Pica- yune, p. B-7. 28. Morial, M.H. (January 30, 1995). “Our Juvenile Curfew Is Working.” The Wash- ington Post. 29. Morial, M.H. (June 2, 1995). “Mayor Morial Reports Juvenile Crime Down on Anniversary of Curfew.” New Orleans, LA: Office of the Mayor (press release). 30. Foti, C.C., Jr. (Summer 1994). “Juve- nile Curfew Center Operational.” The Louisiana Sheriff 7(1):8. 31. Safe City Initiatiue. (1994). Denver, CO: Office of the Mayor (fact sheet). 32. Barnett, M.C. (January 15, 1996). “SafeNite After Curfew Quarterly/Cumu- lative Report and Statistical Composite Addendum.” Denver, CO: SafeNite Pro- gram, p. 8 (memorandum). 33. SafeNite AFter Curfew. Denver, CO: Office of the Mayor. 34. Browne, S. (September 6, 1995). “Safety Effectiveness of SafeNite Curfew Program.” Safety Office of Policy Analy- sis, Denver Police Department, pp. 1-12 (memorandum). Barnett, M.C. (July 1995). “SafeNite After Curfew Quarterly/ Cumulative Report and Statistical Com- posite Addendum,” pp. 1-28. Reported Crime Statistics. (July 1995). Denver, CO: Denver Police Department, Research and Development Division. 35. Nolan, W.P., Chief, North Little Rock Police Department, Arkansas. (August 1995). Personal communication. Nolan, W.P. (1994). “Innovative Curfew Enforce- ment.” The Police Chief61(12):59-61; NCJ 159574. 36. Nolan, W.P. “Innovative Curfew Enforcement,” p. 61. 37. Shorstein, H.L. (June 15, 1995). “State- ment on Juvenile Justice.” Jacksonville, FL State Attorney’s Office. 38. Shorstein, H.L. (January 30, 1996). Personal communication. Additional Reading “Curfew Laws Are Being Enacted To Rein in Kids on the Loose and Charge Parents for Violations.” (1994). Outlook From the State Capitals 48(24):1-4. NCJ 153038. Davidson, H. (1996). “No Conse- quences: Re-examining Parental Respon- sibility Laws.” Stanford Law and Policy Review 7(1) (in press). Frerking, B. (August 13, 1995). “Cur- fews Today Try To Protect Innocent Kids.” The Sacramento Bee. Horowitz, S.M. (1990-1991). “A Search for Constitutional Standards: Judicial Review of Juvenile Curfew Ordinances.” Columbia Journal ofLaw andsocial Pmb lems 24:381-417. NCJ 153040. Hunt, A.L., and Weiner, K. (1977). “The Impact of a Juvenile Curfew: Suppression and Displacement in Patterns of Juvenile Offenses.“ Journal ofPolice Science and Administration 5(4):407-412. NCJ 044614. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (May 1994). “Juvenile Curfew En- forcement” (Concepts and Issues Paper). Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law Enforce- ment Policy Center. NCJ 159572. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1994). “Juvenile Curfew Enforce- ment” (Training Key #445). Alexandria, VA International Association of Chiefs of Police. NCJ 159571. “Juvenile Curfews and Gang Violence: Exiled on Main Street.” (1994). Harvard Law Reuiew 107(7):1693-1710. NCJ 159570. Marketos, A.K. (1995). ”The Constitu- tionality of Juvenile Curfews.” Juuenile and Family Court Journal 46(2):17-30. NCJ 156120. Ruefle, W., and Reynolds, K.M. (1995). “Curfews and Delinquency in Major American Cities.” Crime and Delinquency Veilleux, D.R. (1983). Valid@, Construc- tion, and Effect of Juvenile Curfew Regula- tions. NCJ 153036. Watzman, N. (1994). “The Curfew Re- 41(3):347-363. NCJ 156331. vival Gains Momentum.” Couerning 7(5):20-21. NCJ 149382. For Further Information The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (800-638-8736) can provide addi- tional information on juvenile curfew and contacts for each of the seven jurisdictions discussed in this bulle- tin. Documents cited in this bulletin that are available from the clearing- house are indicated by an NCJ (Na- tional Criminal Justice) number at the end of the reference. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. De- partment of Justice, funded two research studies in 1995: The Effects of Juvenile Curfews on Violent Crime (awarded to Sam Houston University, College of Criminal Justice), and An Analysis of the Juvenile Curfew in New Orleans, Louisiana, as a Crime Prevention Measure for American Cit- ies (awarded to the University of New Orleans, College of Urban/Public Af- fairs). The results of both studies will be available in 1996. For information contact Rosemary N. Murphy, Pro- gram Manager, National Institute of Justice, at 202-307-2959, or the Na- tional Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420. The U.S. Conference of Mayors an- nounced in December 1995 the results of a 387city survey of trends in cities’ use of youth curfews. For information on the survey and its findings, contact John Pionke or Mike Brown at the U.S. Conference of Mayors by telephone, 202-293-7330, or fax, 202-293-2352. The National League of Cities’ publica- tion Juvenile Crime Prevention: Curfews and Youth Services, which is part of the series Issues & Options: Practical Ideas for Local Government Leaders, provides background infor- mation, a section on “Drafting a Curfew Ordinance To Withstand Con- stitutional Challenges” by Mark Hessel, and other helpful resources. To obtain a copy, contact Nathan Ridnouer at the National League of Cities by telephone, 202-626-3188, or e-mail, ridnouer@nlc.org. The International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA, formerly the Na- tional Institute of Municipal Law Offi- cers, Inc., or NlMLO), has published a Model Juvenile Curfew Ordinance that includes a discussion of legal chal- lenges to juvenile curfew ordinances and provides curfew drafting guide- lines. IMLA has also published Sam Lindsay’s 1994 NIMLO Mid-Year Semi- nar Paper, “Juvenile Curfews and the Constitution: The Latest Round in a Continuing Debate.” Copies of both can be obtained by contacting IMLA by telephone, 202-466-5424; fax, 202- 785-0152; or e-mail, IMLADC@aol.com. Chiefs of Police (IACP) has developed a Model Policy on Juvenile Curfew Enforcement, with an accompanying discussion paper, under a grant from The International Association of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. De- partment of Justice. The model policy and paper are designed to assist law enforcement executives in tailoring their own policies to the requirements and circumstances of their communi- ties and their law enforcement agen- cies. To obtain copies of these materials, contact Philip Lynn, Man- ager, IACP, National Law Enforcement Policy Center, by telephone, 703-836- 6767, or fax, 703-8364543. This bulletin was prepared by Donni LeBoeuf, Senior Program Manager, OJJDP, with assistance from OJJDP Intern Patricia Brennan and the Juvenile Justice Resource Center. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention is a component of the Of- fice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Ofice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, D. C. 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 POSTAGE & FEES PAID DOJ/OJJDP Permit No. G-91 NCJ 159533 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 31846209 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) Page 2 of 8 Page 1 Donald HARRAHILL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, CITY OF MONROVIA, Defendant and Respondent. No. B150951. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5. V. Dec. 20,2002. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Irving S. Feffer, Judge. Affirmed. Michael P. Farris, J. Michael Smith, James R. Mason 111; Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz & Hogan, Andrew W. Zepeda, and Donna M. Dean, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Craig A. Steele, City Attorney; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Mitchell E. Abbott, and Patrick K. Bobko, for Defendant and Respondent. ARMSTRONG, J. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment of the trial court finding that a City of Monrovia ordinance was not a "truancy ordinance" but was a "police power ordinance," the effect of which was to regulate off-campus juvenile activity during school hours. We concur with the trial court, and so affirm the judgment. FACTS In 1994, the City adopted an ordinance (the "Ordinance") [FNl] which prohibits school-age children who are subject to the compulsory education laws from being in public places other than school between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on days when school is in session. Plaintiffs challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional on two grounds: First, they maintained that the City Council has no authority to legislate in the field of education, that field being delegated by the Legislature exclusively to local school districts. "If this Ordinance is an educational ordinance ..., then it is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Monrovia is a city and not a school board. School boards have the power to enact supplemental rules governing education .... Cities have no power to enact supplemental education ordinances." FN1. The ordinance reads: "Daytime Curfew. It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen years, who is subject to compulsory education or to compulsory continuation education to loiter, idle, wander, or be in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, or other public grounds, public places, public buildings, places of amusement and eating places, vacant ,lots or any unsupervised place during the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on days when school is in session. This section does not "A. When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, guardian, or other adult person having the care or custody of the minor, or "B. When the minor is on an emergency errand directed by his or her parent or guardian or other adult person having care or custody of the minor; or "C. When the minor is going or coming directly from or to their place of gainful employment or to or from a medical appointment; or "D. To students who have permission to leave school campus for lunch or school related activity and have in their possession a valid, school issued, off-campus permit. "E. When the minor is exempt by law from compulsory education or compulsory continuation education; or "F. When the minor is authorized to be absent from his or her school pursuant to the provisions of California Education Code Section 48205, or any other applicable State or federal law." (Monrovia Municipal Code 3 9.28.030.) apply: Plaintiffsalso maintained that the ordinance cannot be upheld as a valid exercise of the police power, "because cities (excepting charter cities) only have Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 http://print.west1aw.com/de1ivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000005460004192266B8C630~B... 01/03/2003 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 31846209 (CaLApp. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) Page 3 of 8 Page 2 power to enact police ordinances 'not in conflict with general laws.' Cal. Const. Art. XI, $ 7. Local 'police power' ordinances that conflict with general laws are preempted, and California courts have clarified that '[a] conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.' Sherwin- Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893, 897 (1993). Education in general, and compulsory attendance in particular, are 'areas fully occupied by general law.' Monrovia's Ordinance duplicates much of California's compulsory attendance law and contradicts the rests. It is therefore preempted." We note at the outset that plaintiffs' challenge is to the facial validity of the Ordinance. We therefore look only to the language of the Ordinance itself, and are unconcerned with the application of the Ordinance under any particular factual scenario, or with the supposed reduction in crime rates during school hours since adoption of the Ordinance. ( Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069 [a facial challenge focuses on "the text of the measure itself, not its application to the particular circumstances of an individual"].) Neither are we concerned with the characterization of the Ordinance as a "truancy" ordinance by Monrovia's Chief of Police. (See Los Angeles City School Dist. of Los Angeles County v. Ode11 (1927) 200 Cal. 637, 641 [a statute's title "cannot be used for the purpose of restraining or controlling any positive provision of the act."].) For this reason, we deny plaintiffs' request for leave to produce additional evidence or, in the alternative, for judicial notice. DISCUSSION 1. The Ordinance as an Ultra Vires Act Plaintiffs' first argument is based on the premise, long established in California law, that education is "exclusively the function of the state which cannot be delegated to any other agency." (Piper v. Big Pine School Dist of Znyo County (1924) 193 Cal. 664, 669.) Indeed, not only is education exclusively a state function, but cities may not enact supplemental legislation to benefit education. (See, e.g., City and County of Sun Francisco v. Patterson (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 95, 101-102.) The City does not challenge the premise. Rather, it maintains that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of its police power, and is not, as plaintiffs would characterize it, a supplemental education ordinance. Plaintiffs' argument goes as follows: As our Supreme Court has held, the state's truancy laws are educational, not penal, in nature. (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.App.3d 903, 915.) The sole agency of local government which possess any authority regarding education is a local school district. (Cal. Const.Art.IX, $ 14.) Because compulsory attendance and truancy enforcement are clearly within the education power of the state, they are not subject to a municipality's Art. XI, $ 7 police power. In support of their argument, plaintiffs cite Welfare & Institutions Code sections 256, 258, and 625.5, which authorize curfew ordinances "prohibiting minors from remaining in or upon the public streets unsupervised after hours." Plaintiffs maintain that "this express legislative authorization of police ordinances establishing nighttime curfews only demonstrates the lack of any authority for an education ordinance establishing a daytime curfew during school hours." Plaintiffs also seek to surmise the City's purpose in enacting the Ordinance: "If the City's primary goal had really been to reduce juvenile daytime crime, it would logically seek to remove children from the streets when any were found violating the Ordinance. But the City did no such thing. Children who were found on the streets were issued a citation and left on the streets. It is obvious that the harm to be prevented is unexcused absence from school, not vandalism or other juvenile crime. That makes this an education ordinance, and that makes it ultra vires." We are not persuaded. With respect to the last argument, plaintiffs' conclusion that the City must be concerned only with truancy and not with crime prevention or victimization simply does not follow from the fact that violators are issued citations and left on the streets. Indeed, if unexcused absences were the City's primary concern, one would think that a minor found in violation of the statute would be returned to school, resolving the minor's "truant" status. As plaintiffs acknowledge, the California Constitution is the source of the City's police power, not the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Cal. Const.Art.XI, $ 7.) "A City's police power under this provision can be applied only within its own territory and is subject to displacement by general Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BOO558OOOOOOO546OOO4l92266B8C63OAEB ... 01/03/2003 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 3 1846209 (CaLApp. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) Page 4 of 8 Page 3 state law, but otherwise is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself." ( Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 140.) Obviously, if the Ordinance is a valid exercise of the City's police power, it is not ultra vires. The critical issue, then, is can a municipality exercise its police power to prohibit the presence of unsupervised minors in public places during normal school hours? Plaintiffs say no; however, they arrive at that answer by simply labeling the ordinance "educational" and reiterating that only the state or a school board may regulate education. We agree with plaintiffs that compulsory attendance and truancy enforcement are within the educational power of the state, and cannot be drawn under the police power of a municipality. However, the Ordinance, on its face, does not seek to compel school attendance or to enforce truancy provisions. Rather, the Ordinance simply states that a minor who is subject to the compulsory education laws and who is absent from school without excuse between the designated hours will be subject to citation if the minor chooses to be unsupervised in a public place within the City of Monrovia. Thus, a minor who skips school to go to the beach, or who simply stays at home, is every bit as truant as one who hangs out at an arcade, or park, or other public place within the City of Monrovia. However, the Ordinance is not addressed to regulating the conduct of the truant who stays home or who leaves the City limits. It only affects truants who are present in public in Monrovia during certain hours when they are required to be in school. The rationale for such an ordinance can be readily surmised: School-aged children, with certain exceptions, are required to be in school. When in school, they are under the supervision of adults. Parents, police, and the community at large rely on the schools to supervise the minors in their charge. When children are absent from school without excuse, they are no longer under the watchful eye of school authorities and, for that reason, are at greater risk of both being harmed and of causing harm to others. The Monrovia City Council recognized the risks associated with minors who the community assumes are being supervised at school but who in fact are not, and sought to address this problem by making it unlawful for a child who is supposed to be in school to be unsupervised in a public place. This is a classic exercise of a city's police power. (See, e .g., Hutchins v. District of Columbia (D.C.Cir.1999) 188 F.3d 531, 542 ["there can be no serious dispute that protecting the welfare of minors by reducing juvenile crime and victimization is an important governmental interest"]; Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990) 497 U.S. 417, 444 ["The State has a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of its young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely"].) The fact that the Ordinance makes reference to the compulsory education laws simply does not render it an education ordinance. 2. Preemption Plaintiffs next argue that, even if the Ordinance is a proper exercise of police power, it is preempted by state law. Under article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, "[a] county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." " 'Where the legislature has assumed to regulate a given course of conduct by prohibitory enactments, a municipality with subordinate power to act in the matter may make such new and additional regulations in aid and furtherance of the purpose of the general law as may seem fit and appropriate to the necessities of the particular locality and which are not in themselves unreasonable.' " (Pipoly v. Benson (1942) 20 Cal.2d 366, 370.) "There are many situations wherein municipal police power may operate on the same subject matter embraced in state legislation. This is particularly true when the local regulations purport only to supplement the general by additional reasonable requirements, or are in aid and furtherance thereof." (People v. McCennis (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 527, 531.) Thus, it is well-settled that the preemption doctrine does not preclude a city from exercising its police power on a subject simply because the Legislature has also enacted a law on the same subject. However, " 'If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.' [Citations.] "A conflict exists if the local legislation 'duplicates, Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BOO558OOOOOOO546OOO4l92266B8C63OAEB ... 01/03/2003 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 31846209 (CaLApp. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) Page 5 of 8 Page 4 contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.' [Citations.] "Local legislation is 'duplicative' of general law when it is coextensive therewith. (See In re Portnoy (1942) 21 Cal.2d 247, 240 [finding 'duplication' where local legislation purported to impose the same criminal prohibition that general law imposed] .) "Similarly, local legislation is 'contradictory' to general law when it is inimical thereto. (See Ex parte Daniels (1920) 183 Cal. 636, 641-648 [finding 'contradiction' where local legislation purported to fix a lower maximum speed limit for motor vehicles than that which general law fixed].) "Finally, local legislation enters an area that is 'fully occupied by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to 'fully occupy' the area ( [citation] ) or when it has impliedly done so in light of one of the following indicia of intent: '(1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the. state outweighs the possible benefit to the' locality [citations]." ( Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897-898.) Plaintiffs maintain that "Monrovia's Ordinance violates preemption in all three ways .... As amended, the Ordinance duplicates state law insofar as it 'makes it unlawful to violate compulsory attendance;' contradicts state law as it pertains to warrantless stops, the threshold for violations, and the punishments imposed; and enters the fully occupied field of compulsory education and truancy." a. The Ordinance does not duplicate state law Plaintiffs argue that "The Ordinance makes it a violation of city law to violate state law: ... If a student skips school, the school will call the police to have them come to the school to issue a citation. The student is cited for skipping school, but state law already prohibits skipping school. This is duplication." As noted above, a student who skips school by staying home violates state law but not the Ordinance. Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs' position, the Ordinance is not coextensive with, and therefore not duplicative of, the state education law. If, in fact, minors are being cited as described by plaintiffs in the preceding paragraph, they are not being cited pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance. While that fact may subject the Ordinance to an "as applied" challenge, it has no bearing on a facial challenge to its validity. b. The Ordinance does not contradict state law "[Llocal legislation is 'contradictory' to general law when it is inimical thereto." (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898.) Stated another way, "[dlirect conflict exists when the ordinance prohibits conduct which is expressly authorized by state law." (Sports Committee Dist. 37 A.M.A., Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 155, 159.) Plaintiffs argue that the Ordinance contradicts state law because it provides for different penalties than those set forth in the Education Code. The Education Code provides no penalty for the first three times a minor is absent without excuse. Upon the fourth absence (which the statute defines as truant), a warning may be issued by any peace officer, which becomes a part of the student's permanent record. (Educ.Code, QQ 48263, 48264.5, subd. (a).) Upon the fifth absence (second truancy), the student may be assigned to an after school or weekend study program. (Educ.Code., Q 48264.5, subd. (b).) Upon the sixth absence (third truancy), the minor is referred to the Student Attendance Review Board, or truancy mediation program. ( Educ.Code, 0 48264.5, subd. (c).) And upon the seventh absence (fourth truancy), the student is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, adjudged a habitual truant, and made a ward of the court. (Educ.Code, Q 48265.5, subd. (d).) In contrast, under the Ordinance, a minor is subject to citation the first time he or she is found in violation Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BOO558OOOOOOO546OOO4192266B8C630AEB ... 01/03/2003 Page 6 of 8 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 3 1846209 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) Page 5 of the Ordinance, and may be fined $127 or ordered to serve 27 hours of community service. The second infraction carries a $200 fine, while each subsequent citation is subject to a fine of $500. From the foregoing facts, plaintiffs argue: "Thus, under state law a student cannot be summoned into court until his seventh absence. Indeed, the California Supreme Court has said that use of the Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) is 'a condition precedent to the juvenile court' in a truancy matter. (In re Michael G. v. Superior Court of Fresno County (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283, 290.) But in Monrovia, there is no requirement that the student be referred to a SARB before being taken to court for a violation of the Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, the student could be fined a total of $2,327 from his six previous trips to court before the 'condition precedent' has been satisfied for the first trip to the courthouse under state law." However, the court appearance to which a minor is subject under the Ordinance is a non-criminal proceeding in juvenile traffic court before a juvenile traffic referee. Enforcement of the Ordinance does not set in motion the prospect that the minor will be adjudged a habitual truant and made a ward of the juvenile court. In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, the Supreme Court discussed the test of whether the Los Angeles ordinance regulating the display of aerosol paint cans was "contradictory" to the state statute regulating the sale of aerosol paint cans to minors. Said the court: "We must next determine whether the ordinance contradicts the statute. It does not. The former is not inimical to the latter. As the description in the preceding paragraph makes clear, the ordinance does not prohibit what the statute commands or command what it .prohibits." (4 Cal.4th at p. 902.) So too here, the Ordinance is not inimical to the state truancy laws. It neither prohibits conduct which the state law mandates, nor mandates that which the state law prohibits. The Ordinance does not conflict or interfere with the enforcement of the state laws regulating truancy. [FN2] It has nothing to say regarding how truancy officers are to pursue habitual truants. Sherwin- Williams makes clear that the fact that both laws concern the same subject matter does not by itself render them contradictory. FN2. Plaintiffs inform us that "It is critical to note that the City of Monrovia police have stopped enforcing the state truancy law ." Whether or not true, that information is irrelevant to our review of plaintiffs' facial challenge to the Ordinance. c. The State kgislature has not fully occupied the field Finally, plaintiffs maintain that the Ordinance is preempted because the state has "fully occupied" the field of truancy. "[Llocal legislation enters an area that is 'fully occupied by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to 'fully occupy' the area (see, e.g., Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. [ (1985) ] 39 Cal.3d [878] at p. 886), or when it has impliedly done so in light of one of the following indicia of intent: '(1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the' locality [citations]." ( Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898.) In order to determine whether state law fully "occupies the field," either by direct legislation or by implication, "the 'field' involved should first be defined." (In re Hubbard (1964) 62 Cal.2d 119, 125 .) Plaintiffs maintain that the "field" at issue is "truancy," while the City counters that the "field" is "the policing of its streets during the specified daylight hours, and the prevention of juvenile crime and juvenile victimization during those hours." We concur with the City that the "field" at issue is the regulation of off-campus juvenile activity during school hours. And there is no indication that the Legislature has sought to occupy this field, either expressly or by implication. Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 http://print.westlaw .com/de1ivery.htm1?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000005460004192266B8C630~B... 01/03/2003 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 31846209 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) Page 7 of 8 Page 6 The Ordinance has been in effect since 1994. As plaintiffs note, at the time of its enactment the Ordinance generated national attention, and has been the model for local legislation in some 70 California cities. Since 1994, the Legislature has on a number of occasions amended the state truancy laws, but has never declared that those laws are preemptive of local ordinances such as the one at issue here. For example, the Legislature amended the Education Code to provide that a truant may be required to attend makeup classes conducted on the weekend (Educ.Code, Q 48264.5, Stats.2001, ch. 734, Q 29); to broaden the power of the courts to require parents of truants to take certain action regarding enrollment of their children in school ( Educ.Code, Q 48293, Stats.2000, ch. 465, Q 1); and to broaden the definition of "truancy" (Educ.Code, Q 48260, Stats.1995, ch. 19, Q 1). On any of these occasions, the Legislature could have declared that the state truancy laws preempt local juvenile daytime curfew ordinances. The fact that it did not is significant. (Surer v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 CaLAppAth 1109, 11 19- 1120 [Legislature's failure to use language expressly preempting field in wake of court decisions may be taken as evidence of intention not to preempt the field].) In short, we conclude that the Ordinance is a proper exercise of the police power of the City of Monrovia, and is not preempted by state law. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. I concur: GRIGNON, Acting P.J. MOSK, J. dissenting. I respectfully dissent and would rule that the ordinance is preempted by state law. "Truancy has long been a concern of the state ...." ( In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283, 290.) California has enacted compulsory education statutes that establish a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with student absenteeism. (Ed.Code, 0 48260 et seq.) Those statutes define a truant as a student "who is absent from school without valid excuse three full days in one school year or tardy or absent for more than any 30-minute period during the schoolday without a valid excuse on three occasions in one school year, or any combination thereof." (Ed.Code, Q 48260, subd. (a).) The state truancy scheme provides discipline for students' failure to attend school, starting with a written warning and escalating for repeated absences-- from additional school time and a truancy mediation program up to jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Ed.Code, $ 48264.5, subds.(a)-(d).) If made a ward of the court, the truant is subject to terms of public service, fines, mandatory completion of a truancy prevention program, and the revocation of driving privileges. ( Ed.Code, $ 48264.5, subd. (d).) The Supreme Court has stated that "the most important overall change [in truancy law] was to require referral of truants to school attendance review boards before juvenile court intervention." (In re Michael G., supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 290.) In addition, there are measures, including penal sanctions, against parents of truants. (Ed.Code, $48290 et seq.) The City of Monrovia's (Monrovia) ordinance conflicts with the state's comprehensive system for dealing with truancy. The ordinance provides that, with some exceptions, any student subject to California's compulsory education laws who is found at specified places outside school during certain school hours on school days may be cited. Citations require the students to appear in court before a traffic referee. Students are fined in amounts up to $500 per citation and may also be required to perform community service. Thus, contrary to the state scheme, Monrovia has, in effect, criminalized truancy from its inception. Monrovia's solution of imposing financial penalties and community service on children may interfere with the state's remedy of compelling the student to be in school, including after school and school weekend programs. The California Supreme Court has stated in connection with truancy that "[tlhe Legislature's move towards utilizing the school attendance review boards as a condition precedent to the juvenile court's intervention is understandable and in keeping with legal commentary calling for greater participation of school and social welfare professionals, even to the exclusion of the juvenile Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BOO558OOOOOOO546OOO4l92266B8C63O~B... 01/03/2003 --- Cal.App.4th ---- 2002 WL 3 1846209 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) court's jurisdiction. [Footnote.]" (In re Michael G., supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 290.) Monrovia's ordinance refers absentee students to the judicial system without the state-mandated program for "participation of school and social welfare professionals." (Zbid.) Monrovia's ordinance imposes different and more severe sanctions than does state law for the same behavior. Because the law conflicts with the state's general law regulating truancy, it is preempted. ( Sherwin- Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 898 ["local legislation is 'contradictory' to general law when it is inimical thereto']; Mobilepark West Homeowners Assn. v. Escondido Mobilepark West (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 32, 47 [local ordinance imposing a longer period of notice of rental rate increases conflicts with state law and is preempted; "where a statute has set the amount of notice required, the municipality may notimpose further requirements of additional notice"]; Tri County Apartment Assn. v. City oj Mountain View (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1283, 1298 [municipal ordinance requiring longer period of notice for rent increases than state law required "conflicts with the legislative scheme" and is preempted]; Ex parte Daniels (1920) 183 Cal. 636, 647 [local ordinance setting speed limit lower than that set by state law conflicts with state law and is preempted].) I recognize that the Monrovia ordinance may be an effective method to combat the problem of truancy. Yet, "education is a statewide concern and ... the Legislature is vested by the Constitution with the ultimate control over school matters." (Patton v. Governing Board (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 495, 501.) Here the Legislature has promulgated a system that it believes is the best way to deal with truancy. Monrovia, and other cities, however well-intentioned, should not, without appropriate legislative blessing, be able to impose methods inconsistent with those of the state to handle truants. Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2002. Harrahill v. City Of Monrovia END OF DOCUMENT Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 Page 8 of 8 Page 7 http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BOO558OOOOOOO546OOO4l92266B8C63OAEB ... 01/03/2003 Grand Jury COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hall of Justice 330 West Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego, CA 92101-3830 (619) 515-8707 (619) 515-8696 FAX CHUCK MULROY, Foreman May 1 , 2002 CONFIDENTIAL City Councils (See Attached Mailing List) Police Departments (See Attached Mailing List) School Districts (See Attached Mailing List) Re: “TRUANCY & CURFEW PRACTICES-The Lack of Consistency and Uniformity and its Impact on San Diego County”. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The 2001-2002 San Diego County Grand Jury herewith provides the referenced report for your review and comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code of Catifornia $933(c). This report was prspared pursuant to $925, $925(a) and $933.5 of the Penal Code. In accordance with Penal Code $933.05(e), a copy of this report is being provided to affected agencies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that §933.05(e) specifies that no officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release. This report will be filed with the Clerk of the Court and released to the public on Wednesday, May 8,2002. Sincerely, SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2001-2002 Foreman CEM:lln enc. ATTACHED MAlLlNG LlST City Council of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive San Diego, CA 92008-1949 City Council of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91912-1087 City Council of Coronado 1825 Strand Way Coronado, CA 921 18-3005 City Council of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014-2604 City Council of El Cajon 200 E. Main Street El Cajon, CA 92020-3912 City Council of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-3633 City Council of Escondido 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025-2709 City Council of La Mesa 81 30 Allison Avenue La Mesa, CA 91941-5002 City Council of Lemon Grove 3232 Main Street Lemon Grove, CA 91945-1705 City Council of National City 1243 National City Blvd. National City, CA 91950-4031 City Council of Oceanside 300 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054-2885 City Council of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064-5755 City Council of Santee 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee, CA 92071 City Council of San Diego 202 C Street, 9" Floor San Diego, CA 92101 City Council of Solana Beach 635 S. Highway 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075-2215 City Council of Vista 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, CA 92084-6240 Chief, Carlsbad Police Department 2560 Orion Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Chief, El Cajon Police Department 100 Fletcher Parkway El Cajon, CA 92020 Chief, Coronado Police Department 700 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 921 18 Chief, La Mesa Police Department 8181 Allison Avenue La Mesa, CA 91941 Chief, National City Police Department 1200 National City Blvd. National City, CA 91 950 Chief, Oceanside Police Department 3855 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 ATTACHED MAILING LIST Chief, Escondido Police Department 700 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 Chief, Chula Vista Police Department 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chief, San Diego Police Department 1401 Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Sheriff, San Diego County P.O. Box 429000 San Diego, CA 92142-9000 San Diego County Board of Supervisors County Administration Center 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, CA 92101 . Jere Ancell, Superintendent Alpine Union School District 1323 Administration Way Alpine, CA 91901-9401 Jeffrey Schleiger, Superintendent Bonsall Union School District P.O. Box 3 Bonsall, CA 92003-0003 Marge Dean, Superintendent Cajon Valley Union School District P.O. Box 1007 El Cajon, CA 92020-4098 Cheryl Ernst, Superintendent Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-2493 Marilyn Wheeler, Superintendent Coronado Unified School District 555 D Avenue Coronado, CA 921 18-1 799 Thomas Bishop, Superintendent Del Mar Union School District 225 Ninth Street Del Mar, CA 92014-2716 Michael Caston, Superintendent Escondido Union School District 1330 E. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92027-3099 David Hughes, Superintendent Escondido Union High School District 302 N. Midway Drive Escondido, CA 92027-2741 Shandra Hahn, Superintendent Borrego Springs Unified School District 2281 Diegueno Road Borrego Springs, CA 92004-5003 Rodger Smith, Superintendent Cardiff School District 1888 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007-231 3 Libia Gil, Superintendent Chula Vista Elementary School District 84 East J Street Chula Vista, CA 9191 0-61 99 Barbara Rohrer, Superintendent Dehesa School District 4612 Dehesa Road El Cajon, CA 92019-2922 Doug DeVore, Superintendent Encinitas Union School District 101 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road Encinitas, CA 92024-4308 James M. Choate, Superintendent Fallbrook Union Elementary School District 321 N. Iowa Street Fallbrook, CA 92028 Allan Gordon, Superintendent Jamul-Dulzura Union School District 14581 Lyons Valley Road Jamul, CA 91 935-3324 Warren Hogarth, Superintendent La Mesa-Spring Valley School District 4750 Date Avenue La Mesa, CA 91941-5293 Dr. McLean King, Superintendent Lemon Grove School District 8025 Lincoln Street Lemon Grove, CA 91 945-251 5 George Cameron, Superintendent National School District 1500 N Avenue National City, CA 91950-4827 Donald Phillips, Superintendent Poway Unified School District 13626 Twin Peaks Road Poway, CA 92064-3098 Daniel Vinson, Superintendent Rancho Santa Fe School District P.O. Box 809 Rancho Santa Fe. CA 92067-0809 Larry Maw, Superintendent San Marcos Unified School District 1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300 San Marcos, CA 92069-2952 Kevin Ogden, Superintendent Julian Union School District P.O. Box 337 Julian, CA 92036-0337 Carol Leighty, Superintendent Lakeside Union School District P.O. Box 578 Lakeside, CA 92040-0578 Greg Ryan, Superintendent Mountain Empire Unified School District 3291 Buckman Springs Road Pine Valley, CA 91 962-4003 Kenneth Noonan, Superintendent Oceanside Unified School District 21 1 I Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054-2395 Peter Schiff, Superintendent Ramona Unified School District 720 9th Street Ramona, CA 92065-2399 Alan Bersin, Superintendent San Diego Unified School District 4100 Normal Street San Diego, CA 92103-2682 Jeffrey P. Felix, Superintendent San Pasqual Union School District 15305 Rockwood Road Escondido, CA 92027-6700 Grace Kojima, Superintendent San Ysidro School District 4350 Otay Mesa Road San Ysidro, CA 92173 Eleanore Topolovac, Superintendent Solana Beach School District 309 North Rios Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075-1298 Julie Weaver, Superintendent Spencer Valley School District P.O. Box 159 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070-01 59 Jeff Mulford, Superintendent Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District 28751 Cole Grade Road Valley Center, CA 92082-6599 Frank Murphy, Superintendent Warner Unified School District P.O. Box 8 Warner Springs, CA 92086-0008 Thomas Anthony, Superintendent Fallbrook Union High School District 2234 S. Stage Coach Lane Fallbrook, CA 92028 Larry Marquand, Superintendent Julian Union High School District P.O. Box 417 Julian, CA 92036-0417 Marcia Johnson, Superintendent Santee School District 9625 Cuyamaca Street Santee, CA 92071 -2674 Patrick Pettit, Superintendent South Bay Union 601 Elm Avenue Imperial Beach, CA 91 932-2098 Paul Cartas, Superintendent Vallecitos School District 521 1 Fifth Street Fallbrook, CA 92028-9796 Dave Cowles, Superintendent Vista Unified School District 1234 Arcadia Avenue Vista, CA 92084-3495 Dr. Rudy Castruita, Superintendent San Diego County Office of Education 6401 Linda Vista Road San Diego, CA 921 11-7399 Granger B. Ward, Superintendent Grossmont Union High School District P.O. Box 1043 La Mesa, CA 91944-1043 Dr. Peggy Lynch, Superintendent San Dieguito Union High School District 710 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024-3357 TRUANCY & CURFEW PRACTICES The Lack of Consistency and Uniformity and its Impact on San Diego County A Report by the San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 May 8,2002 TRUANCY & CURFEW PRACTEES The Lack of Consistency and Uniformity and its impact on San Diego County SYNOPSIS Given the high profile of issues concerning truancy and curfew practices dealing with San Diego County youth, the Grand Jury conducted a study of these issues with particular emphasis upon interagency, inter-school, parental, student and general community coordination of programs and effort. Parents, schools, law enforcement, the Courts, and general community-based organizations and programs have a stake in the successful implementation of truancy and curfew policies and regulations. Whereas, it is not the intent of the Grand Jury to suggest that truancy and curfew enforcement share parallel or similar form and process, it is, as this report attests, the Grand Jury’s intent to illuminate that one of the root causes of these social problems, i.e. parental responsibiMy, is fundamentally common to both. San Diego County is fortunate to have a broad spectrum of policy, program and implementation devices dealing with truancy and curfew. The County is not so fortunate when it comes to coordination of effort, sharing of resources, or learning from each other’s successes and failures in dealing with truants and curfew violators. A proactive involvement with students and their families before truancy and curfew violations occur would result in reduced costs to the County, both in terms of money and social well being. ISSUES The primary concerns which guided the Grand Jury’s decision to study the various issues dealing with truancy and curfew focused on whether or not the people of San Diego County receive reasonable or adequate value from all the effort and resources employed in truancy and curfew programs. All, or nearly all, groups, organizations and agencies dealing with youth in San Diego County have programs and policies addressing truancy and curfew. All curfew laws and ordinances throughout the County are well written and clearly understandable. However, many children and parents (or guardians) are confused about the different curfew hours in various locations of the County. For example, a youngster from Coronado (1 1 :OOpm curfew) could travel to La Mesa E D2- 1 San Diego County Grand Jury 2007-2002 (May 8,2002) (1 0:OOpm curfew) to roller skate and be stopped for curfew violation upon arrival in La Mesa. Equally confusing is the unequal or inconsistent application of School Attendance Review Board (SARB) policies from school district to school district. This inequity was found most notably between a school with strict, closed campus rules with regular truancy sweeps, and a nearby school with an open campus and little regard for truancy enforcement. Although the end results of these programs and policies consistently address the improved welfare of San Diego County youth, the means of achieving those results differ broadly due to lack of consistency, applicability and accountability among and within the various programs. BACKGROUND Aside from the curfew laws and ordinances of San Diego County and the eighteen incorporated cities, the California Education Code and local school policies dealing with truancy are clear and straight forward in their meaning and intent. Additionally, each school district has a framework available for creating and implementing a School Attendance Review Board (SARB). A SARB is a form and structure with the ability to enforce school attendance policy in compliance with the California Education Code. These SARBs were created by the Legislature in 1974 and are supported by and guided by the San Diego County Office of Education. Each SARB is governed by a community-based board composed of parents, representatives from the school district, and members of the community-at-large, including law enforcement, welfare, probation, and various other agencies dealing with youth. PROCEDURES EMPLOYED To comprehend and appreciate the scope and importance of truancy and curfew issues in San Diego County, the Grand Jury consulted with, reviewed and/or discussed policies, practices and procedures dealing with truants and curfew violators with the following: San Diego County Sheriffs Department City of San Diego Police Department (including San Diego City School San Diego County Office of Education 28 of 42 School Districts in San Diego County Juvenile Court SARB (School Attendance Review Board) members Police) ED2-2 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) Eighteen incorporated cities of San Diego County Various classroom teachers, special education teachers and various California Education Code State Senator vocational education specialists FACTS A. Most, if not all, juveniles caught up in the ustice system (for whatever reason) are truants and curfew violators. i B. Truancy and curfew violation practices are learned behaviors established b children at early ages, prior to high school and middle school years. Y C. The majority of truants and curfew violators function in an environ- ment lacking parental involvement, supervision and re~ponsibility.~ D. The cost of pro-active, intervening actions teaching parents the importance of responsible parenting and education for their children is more than offset by eventual costs for later reactive actions such as juvenile detention, court and crime costs, et^.^ E. Although all schools have access to SARBs, there are wide ranges of application to and enforcement of the SARB policies and regulations. Some community-based boards go unfilled for lack of community or parental upp port.^ FINDINGS I. Each municipality in San Diego County has published guidelines on curfew violation and enforcement, and each school district in San Diego County has published guidelines on truancy violation and enforcement. II. There are unnecessary costs and counterproductive efforts in various communities resulting from inconsistent application and enforcement of truancy and curfew regulations from community to community. 1 San Diego Sheriffs Department. San Diego County Office of Education, Attendance Division. Also, San Diego Police Department Oceanside Unified School District, Attendance and Intervention Office. San Diego County Office of Education, Attendance Support Program. * School Attendance Review Board (SARB) Handbook. 3 and San Diego County Sheriffs Department. 4 5 ED2-3 Saego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) 111. SARBs, although of unquestioned intent, are almost exclusively reactive to truants and the problems they create. There is very little which a SARB does that is proactive and interventional to avoid truancy. IV. V. VI. VI I VIII. Poor self-esteem, lack of confidence, poor socialization skills, lack of respect for authority, family and domestic problems (divorce, drug and alcohol abuse) are among the key indicators of developing truants and curfew violators. Children who drift into habitual violations of both truancy and curfew standards in their environments do so with parental ignorance or indifference, and such practices commence at early ages, before the high school and middle school years. Significant, disturbing and direct relationships exist between juvenile delinquency, drug use, school drop out rates and life histories of truants and curfew violators. Parental involvement with the successful growth and education of their children is essential. In those instances where parental involvement with the raising and education of their children is not or cannot be realized, alternative or substituted actions are either unavailable or awkward to arrange. California State law does not require a person to be a responsible parent to their child. Equally frustrating, California State law as currently written does not quickly or easily allow for agency substitutions of services to truant children or curfew violators where parents are unavailable or refuse to parent effectively. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Eighteen Incorporated Cities of San Diego County: 02-08: Adopt uniform curfew hours of I1 :OOpm to 5:00am, any evening, any day, any week. That the San Diego County Sheriffs Department and all City Police Departments: 02-09: Enforce the rules of curfew equally, in all areas, all jurisdictions. ED2-4 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) That the County Board of Supervisors: 02-1 0: Implement a program that places emphasis on proactive interven- tions with small children at risk of truancy and curfew violation and their parents before the detrimental results of truancy and curfew violation occur. That the Forty-two School Districts in San Diego County: 02-1 I : Set up programs which integrate families and students in the development of self-esteem and mutual respect. That the County Board of Supervisors: 02-1 2: Propose legislation which would compel parents to be actively involved with their children to avoid truancies and curfew violations. That the County Board of Supervisors: 02-1 3: Propose legislation which would empower the Courts to intervene more efficiently and more rapidly with parental substitutions in those cases where parents are unavailable to parent their children. REQUIREMENTS /INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits its report to the public agency. Also, every ELECTED county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head, as well as any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. Such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: ED2-5 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) (1 ) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. - (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code s933.05 is required from the: Alpine Union School District Recommendation: 02-1 1 Bonsall Union School District Recommendation: 02-1 1 Borrego Springs Unified School Recommendation: 02-1 1 District Cajon Valley Union School District Recommendation: 02-1 1 ED2-6 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) Cardiff School District City Council of Carlsbad Carlsbad Police Department Carlsbad Unified School District City Council of Chula Vista Chula Vista Police Department Chula Vista Elementary School District City Council of Coronado Coronado Police Department Coronado Unified School District Dehesa School District City Council of Del Mar Del Mar Union School District City Council of El Cajon El Cajon Police Department City Council of Encinitas Encinitas Union School District City Council of Escondido Escondido Police Department Escondido Union School District Escondido Union High School District Fallbrook Union Elementary School District Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 I Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 I ED2-7 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) Fallbrook Union High School District Grossmont Union High School District City Council of Imperial Beach Jamul-Dulzura Union School District Julian Union School District Julian Union High School District City Council of La Mesa La Mesa Police Department La Mesa-Spring Valley School District Lakeside Union School District City Council of Lemon Grove Lemon Grove School District Mountain Empire Unified School District National School District City Council of National City National City Police Department City Council of Oceanside Oceanside Police Department Oceanside Unified School District City Council of Poway Poway Unified School District Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation : 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 I Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 ED2-8 San Diego County Grand Jury 2007-2002 (May 8,2002) Ramona Unified School District Rancho Santa Fe School District City Council of San Diego San Diego Police Department San Diego Unified School District San Dieguito Union High School District City Council of San Marcos San Marcos Unified School District San Pasqual Union School District San Ysidro School District City Council of Santee Santee School District City Council of Solana Beach Solana Beach School District South Bay Union School District Spencer Valley School District Sweetwater Union High School District Vallecitos School District Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District City Council of Vista Vista Unified School District Warner Unified School District Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 I Recommendation: 02-1 I Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-08 Recommendation: 02-1 1 Recommendation: 02-1 I E 02-9 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) San Diego County Sheriff’s Department San Diego County Board of Supervisors Recommendation: 02-09 Recommendations: 02-10,02-12~ 02-1 3 ED2-10 San Diego County Grand Jury 2001-2002 (May 8,2002) M San Diego County comprehensive strategy For Youth, Family And Community Fall 1 998 M c M Submitted By The San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy Team This report would not be possible without the commitment and hard work put forth by many agencies, organizations, individuals and communities too numerous to list yet vital in our efforts. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION (Will be inserted on this page) Comprehensive Strategy Support Staff Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Developmental Research and Programs Inc., National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Office of San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, San Diego County Probation Department and the Children’s Initiative OVERVIEW In 1995, the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention designed a conceptual model to coordinate and enhance youth-centered efforts in cities and counties across the country. In 1996, under the leadership of Supervisor Ron Roberts, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors succeeded in making the County of San Diego one of the first national sites for implementation of this new strategy. Known as the Comprehensive Strategy, this model is predicated upon a philosophy of shared responsibility and coordinated action to prevent juvenile delinquency and promote positive development of youth. In San Diego, this strategy has become a region-wide effort to develop healthy, responsible youth through prevention, intervention and appropriate sanctions. All manner of indicators - from arrest rates, to teen pregnancies, to dropout statistics - indicate the pressing need to attend to the challenges and issues facing youth. These needs have spurred many diverse efforts, strategies and systems. However, the individual and collective effectiveness of these efforts has frequently been hindered by a lack of communication, collaboration and coordination. It is this challenge that the Comprehensive Strategy is seeking to address. Development of San Diego’s Comprehensive Strategy has presented a unique opportunity to prevent duplication of efforts, identify system gaps and create a seamless web of integrated supervision, service and support for youth. The Comprehensive Strategy, both as a process and as a documented product, represents the first time that collaboration of this scale has occurred in San Diego County. The diverse team of local leaders, public and private groups, schools, law enforcement agencies and community members who developed the Comprehensive Strategy have endeavored to create a blueprint for effective collaboration with sustainable and measurable results. However, the printed pages of this document do not contain the final word or the complete solution. Instead, it is expected that the philosophical approach and constructive process they reflect will continue to engender innovative cooperation to secure a better future for our children. c c F3 San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community 1 VISION For all of San Diego’s youth to develop into caring, literate, educated and responsible community members. MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Comprehensive Strategy is to promote the positive development of youth and to prevent juvenile delinquency STRATEGIES 2 Prevention Programs and resources that address community, family and individual risk factors, and enhance protective factors that will minimize the risk of delinquent behavior. Intervention Programs and resources that provide immediate, swift responses within the community for youth exhibiting delinquent behavior before they enter the Criminal Justice System. Graduated Sanctions Programs and resources that encompass the entire continuum of sanctions for youth and their families, from community service to incarceration at the California Youth Authority. These programs and resources provide for prevention, intervention, supervision, treatment and incarceration. Collaboration Strong working relationships between organizations, institutions and individuals (public/private as well as governmentkommunity) to maximize resources and share information in support of services and programs for youth. Data Sharing Develop and strengthen protocols and information infrastructure that allow data sharing between collaborative agencies to better serve youth and their families while maintaining legally mandated confidentiality. San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community GUIDING PRINCIPLES As a blueprint for community action and collaboration, our Comprehensive Strategy is designed to offer a broad spectrum of recommendations that will assist in mobilizing communities to promote positive development of youth and to prevent juvenile delinquency. Borrowing from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, we hold true to the same guiding principles that must be supported for the development of caring, literate, educated and responsible youth. 1 .) We must strengthen families. It is important to provide families with resources, skills and knowledge to assist them in providing for and nurturing their children. 2.) We must support core social institutions. It is important that core social institutions offer community-based and family-focused services that enhance the development of capable, mature and responsible youth. 3.) We must promote delinquency prevention. It is important to aggressively develop, promote and fund effective and coordinated prevention strategies. 4.) We must intervene immediately and appropriately when delinquent behavior occurs. It is important to act swiftly when initial delinquency behavior occurs to impress upon all parties the seriousness and consequences of this behavior, as well as positive alternatives. 5.) We must identify and sanction the most chronic and serious juvenile offenders. It is important to identify and isolate this population as we work to break cycles of criminal behavior. RISK FACTORS A number of significant risk factors that affect the lives of youth and their families have been clearly identified. Although no one risk factor can be taken in isolation, the following statistics must be considered when working toward prevention and intervention strategies: In 1996, 19,643 youth were arrested in San Diego County; More than 3,700 youth are on Probation each day in our county; From 1991 to 1995, juvenile arrests for drugs and alcohol violations rose 52%; Homicide rates in San Diego County, each year between 1991 and 1993, were the In 1996, San Diego County had approximately 126 gangs and 9,630 gang members; From 1992 to 1996, there was a 43% increase in admissions in Juvenile Hall; Remands to adult court increased from 39 in 1992 to 322 in 1996; and m In 1996, firearms were used in 92.3% of all youth homicide cases and 63.1% of all youth suicides e w highest of all age categories for youths aged 15-19; 0 San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community 3 SYSTEM NEEDS AND GAPS Throughout the planning process, a comprehensive assessment of existing resources, infrastructure, programs and strategies was conducted. This process covered the full continuum of care: prevention, graduated sanctions and aftercare. Four categories of gaps identify where resources are lacking: 1) program; 2) geographic; 3) support services; and 4) infrastructure. Highlights of specific gaps within each category include the following: Program Needs and Gaps 0 Substance abuse treatment for youth and their families at all steps of the continuum; After school programs, both on and off school campuses; and Specific programs for girls. Geographic Needs and Gaps Correctional facilities in North County; Drug and alcohol services and treatment programs in North County; and Day treatment and supervision programs located regionally (North, South, East and Central). Support Service Needs and Gaps Access to affordable and high quality childcare; 0 Family preservation services and home support (including parenting classes); Job training for youth and their families; and Transportation for youth and their families to any necessary services. Infrastructure Needs and Gaps Cross-system training so youth service providers understand programs outside their focus or scope of expertise; Information and communication systems that allow accurate and efficient data collection, compilation and sharing to occur across multiple agencies (where allowed by law); and 0 Risk and needs assessment tools designed to assist service providers and collaborating agencies in identifying and serving at-risk youth at all stages of the continuum and across program boundaries. 4 San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINUUM OF SERVICES The following recommendations are presented to fill identified gaps in the continuum of services for youth and their families: 0 Community Mobilization Increase the number of community members (individuals, families, schools, businesses, organizations, service providers, etc.) engaged to mobilize and promote crime-free, healthy communities that are safe places for children to learn and grow. M n 0 Community Risk and Resource Assessment Adopt instruments to assess and identify local community needs, resources and priorities for development of community-based prevention programs that target at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. Substance Abuse Efforts Support the recommendations from San Diego’s 1996 Substance Abuse Summit, the 1996 Methamphetamine Strike Force and the San Diego County Juvenile Forensics Services on integrated approaches for the prevention of youth alcohol and substance abuse. Community Norms Support development and adoption of community laws and norms that guard against substance abuse, weapon possession and all aspects of juvenile delinquency, and encourage positive alternatives. Risk and Treatment Needs Instruments Adopt shared, structured decision-making instruments for assessing individual at- risk youth and their families. Promote and secure consensus on the use of these instruments from all involved public and private agencies. San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community 5 M U RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION, MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION There are necessary implementation, management and evaluation strategies that must be in place to ensure a sustainable framework for efforts to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. The San Diego Comprehensive Strategy Team developed the following recommendations to address our critical infrastructure needs: e e e e e e e 6 Promote a Balanced Approach to Funding Promote a balanced approach to funding prevention, early intervention and graduated sanction programs that considers both safety needs of the community and treatment needs of at-risk youth, juvenile offenders and their families. Public Outreach Strategy Develop a comprehensive, countywide public outreach strategy that continuously engages the public and policy makers in the prevention and reduction of juvenile crime and in the promotion of healthy and crime-free lifestyles. Cross-Systems Training Provide cross-system training between public and private agency providers to acquire common language, methodologies and collaborative efforts. Interagency Agreements Develop formal interagency agreements (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement) that explicitly state the relationship, roles, responsibilities and expected outcomes for all parties in collaborative efforts to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency, and promote positive development of youth. Case Management and Process Control Develop a case management system that follows each youth through the various stages of the continuum of care. Designate the Chief Probation Officer with the responsibility and resources needed to coordinate an interagency, centralized intake process, case management and program control (including assessment, monitoring and feedback) for identified at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. Management Information system Build on existing management information system (MIS) efforts to facilitate relevant communication and data sharing by all criminal justice agencies and collaborating entities (public and private) consistent with appropriate protection of privacy rights. Evaluation Provide for locally relevant and ongoing evaluation of programs, agencies and strategies to ensure effectiveness and to allocate resources based upon need and documented effectiveness. San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community PROGRESS TO DATE Agencies, organizations and individuals have not waited for the completion of the Comprehensive Strategy planning process to begin to fill the needs and gaps for our youth. Specific programs and strategies have been developed, funded and implemented as our work identifying needs continues. These programs and strategies include: BREAKING CYCLES Breaking Cycles is a $6.9 million SB1760 State grant awarded to the San Diego County Probation Department. This three-year program (beginning July 1997) funds delinquency prevention through a range of graduated sanctions to prevent initiation into a lifestyle of gangs, drugs, violence and crime. The graduated sanctions component provides for multidisciplinary assessment of all adjudicated youth removed from, or at risk of removal from, the home; expands day treatment to North County region; and provides substance abuse treatment for all families by assessed need. The prevention component establishes strength-based family assessment with Community Assessment Teams to reduce the number of youth entering the justice system by referring the youth and their families to appropriate services. SAN DIEGO CRITICAL HOURS PROGRAM The County Board of Supervisors, through the General Budget, awarded $1.2 million in FY ‘97-98 and $1.5 million in FY ‘98-99 for after school programs for middle school age youth in San Diego County. The San Diego County Critical Hours Program seeks to foster collaborative efforts among public, private and non-profit organizations that have in the past been fragmented and isolated in their efforts to serve children, youth and families. Critical Hours seeks to address youth violence, health and social issues that affect youth (e.g. crime, gang involvement, teen pregnancy, substance abuse and peer group pressure) and offer an alternative support system. With required program components, including health, education, recreation and interpersonal skilldself-esteem development, Critical Hours programs encourage a partnering of community organizations (i.e. education + recreation + social services + art organizations) to provide high quality programming at each site. Twenty-seven programs were started in September 1997, and have served more than 12,000 middle school age youth. The County will expand to 34 sites in 1998-99. There are currently 18 lead agencies with 150 collaborative partners. AT-RISK YOUTH EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM Senator Alpert’s SB 1050 secured a $2 million, one-year grant (in addition to SB 1760) that builds upon the community assessment team framework that was defined in the Breaking Cycles grant. SB 1050 provides funding for direct wraparound services and linkages with community resources through family- focused, neighborhood-based community assessment teams and centers. SB 1050 was awarded to the San Diego County Probation Department, which sub-contracted with local community based agencies to provide direct prevention and intervention services to youth and their families. M u2 San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community 7 JOB TRAINING FOR FOSTER, GANG AND HIGH RISK YOUTH The San Diego Workforce Partnership has allotted more than $1 million in funding to assist high-risk youth with job training skills and job placement. GENDER SPECIFIC SERVICES FOR GIRLS The San Diego YMCA, Youth and Family Services was recently awarded a $300,000 three-year grant from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning to provide gender- specific services for San Diego girls, with highest priority given to girls on probation. These services include but are not limited to: groups to address physical and emotional abuse, relationship issues, sexuality and reproductive issues, individual and family counseling, independent living skills, vocational training and parenting skills. Also the National Council on Crime and Delinquency was awarded a California Wellness Foundation grant to study gender specific programs for girls in San Diego County. SUMMARY The Comprehensive Strategy as embodied in this document represents an unprecedented collaborative effort to prevent juvenile delinquency and promote positive development of youth. As such, this report is more than an evaluation and summary of needs, recommendations and outcomes. More important than any single issue or concept contained herein is the philosophical commitment to shared responsibility and coordinated action upon which the Comprehensive Strategy effort is predicated. Sustained organization and agency support, community action and individual empowerment consistent with this philosophy can help San Diego County youth to become caring, literate, educated and responsible adults. Comprehensive Strategy Support Staff Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Developmental Research and Programs Inc., National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Office of San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Police Department and the Children’s Initiative 8 San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy For Youth, Family and Community I c -I ', Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Members Practitioner Members Lisa M. Beecher Defective Portland Police Department The Honorable James L. Burgess Presiding Judge 18th Judicial District of Kansas U.S. Department of Justice The Honorable Janet Reno, Chair Attorney Genernl Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Shay Bilchik, Vice Chair Administrator John Cahill Immigration and Naturalization Service Program Coordinator Clark County Family and Youth Services Department Dons Meissner Commissioner John A. (Jack) Calhoun Executive Director National Crime Prevention Council Nancy G. Guerra, Ed.D. Associate Professor ofPsychology University of Illinois at Chicago Michael J. Mahoney President John Howard Association The Honorable Gordon A. Martin, Jr. Associate Justice Massachusetts Trial Court Roxbury District Court Mary Ann Murphy Manager Regional Center for Child Abuse and Neglect Deaconess Medical Center Rose W. Washington Executive Director Berkshire Farms Center U.S. Department of Health and Human Services The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Ph.D. Secretary U.S. Department of Labor The Honorable Robert B. Reich Secretory U.S. Department of Education The Honorable Richard W. Riley Secreta y U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The Honorable Henry G. Cisneros Secretary Office of National Drug Control Policy Lee P. Brown, Ph.D. Director Corporation for National Service Eli J. Segal Chipf Executive Oficer Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was established in 1974 as an independent organization in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The primary function of the Council is to make recommendations to the President and the Congress on coordination of overall policy and development of objectives and priorities for all Federal juvenile delinquency programs and activities. Members of the Coordinating Council are listed above. The nine practitioner members in the field of juvenile justice are appointed, without regard to political affiliation, by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the President of the United States. Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan Summary Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention March 1996 Foreword Every day, crime shatters the peace in our Nation‘s neighborhoods. Violent crime and the fear it engenders cripple our society, threaten personal freedom, and fray the ties that are essential for healthy communities. No comer of America is safe from increasing levels of criminal violence, including violence committed by and against juveniles. Parents are afraid to let their children walk to school alone. Children hesitate to play in neighborhood playgrounds. The elderly lock themselves in their homes, and innocent Americans of all ages find their lives changed by the fear of crime. This Summary of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Action Plan) presents innovative and effective strategies designed to reduce violence and victimization. Through these efforts, communities and citizens are working to bring about positive change. They are establishing neighborhood watches and citizen patrols and working with law enforcement and other agencies to close down drug houses. They are cleaning up playgrounds and parks and creating drug- and weapon-free school zones. They are forming community planning teams to identify risk factors for delinquency, assess re- sources and needs, and provide programs designed to prevent juvenile involvement in delinquency and crime. They are creating opportunities for youth to take part in community-building activities. In concert with commu- nity oriented policing and strict accountability for offenders, these local prevention efforts are our Nation’s most effective long-term weapons against crime and violence. Although the public is deeply concerned about juvenile violence and victimization, many Americans do not know how they can help. Because the effects of juvenile violence are felt by entire communities, the search for solutions must be a communitywide effort, and every citizen needs to be involved. The Action Plan describes how communities can generate solutions and how individuals and groups can prevent or reduce violence in their own block, public housing unit, or neighborhood. Cooperative partnerships among justice, health, child welfare, education, and social service systems can lay the foundation for measurable suc- cesses. Working together, individuals, groups, and communities can make real and sustained changes. The Action Plan also provides important information about Federal training, technical assistance, grants, research, evaluation, and other resources that support these efforts. The Coordinating Council recognizes that much work needs to be done. However, by continuing to build partnerships throughout our government and communities, we can promote early intervention and prevention of youth violence. The solutions are within reach. The power to change America is within ourselves. Together, we can redeem the promise that every young life holds. Attorney General Janet Reno Chair Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention c Acknowledgments The problem of violent crime committed by and against juveniles is a national crisis. The work of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in developing the Action Plan represents an extraordinary accomplishment. The Action Plan frames the fight against juvenile violence through eight objectives that can be supported by activity at the Federal, State, local, community, and individual levels-and bases its recommended actions on research and program evaluations that give us reason to believe that we can be successful. The Action Plan also provides an annotated bibliography and technical assistance resources that can assist in ensuring that success. While all of the members of the Coordinating Council participated in the development of the Action Plan, a Coordinating Council Working Group that includes the practitioner members and staff from both the member and other participating Federal agencies helped make this a document truly reflective of the needs of the field. The individuals, listed in Appendix B, spent countless hours reviewing, refining, and finalizing the Action Plan. I thank them for their significant contribution. Special thanks are due to the Department of Justice’s Youth Violence Working Group and to the bureaus of the Office of Justice Programs. There are several members of the staff of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) without whom this Action Plan could not have been produced. Gina E. Wood, Director of Concentration of Federal Efforts, guided this project with patience and vision to its conclusion. OJJDP Deputy Administrator John J. Wilson helped refine the document into its present clear statement. Sarah Ingersoll, Special Assistant to the OJJDP Administrator, served as the Action Plan’s primary author. OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Resource Center provided invaluable support in developing the Action Plan. The Action Plan was designed to provide a framework and strategy for action to address the problem of juvenile violence facing communities, their youth, and the juvenile justice system. I believe it has accomplished this goal. I look forward to implementing the action steps and seeing the emergence of a stronger juvenile justice system and a safer America. Shay Bilchik Vice Chair Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Table of Contents ... Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................. Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................. v An Urgent Call to Action ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 What We Can Accomplish Together ............................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives of The National JuvenileJustice Action Plan ............................................................................................... 2 Objective 1 . Provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanctions and treatment for delinquent juveniles ............................................................................................ 3 Objective 2 . Prosecute certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in criminal court .................................................................................................................... 4 Objective 3 . Reduce youth involvement with guns, drugs, and gangs ............................................................ 6 Objective 4 . Provide opportunities for children and youth ............................................................................... 8 Objective 5 . Break the cycle of violence by addressing youth victimization, abuse, and neglect ........................................................................................................................ 9 Objective 6 . Strengthen and mobilize co~unities .......................................................................................... 10 Objective 7 . Support the development of innovative approaches to research and evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Objective 8 . Implement an aggressive public outreach campaign on effective strategies to combat juvenile violence ........................................................................................ 12 Reduce Tomorrow's Violence: Take Action Today ........................................................................................................... 15 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Appendix A . Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ................................................................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B . Working Group Participants ...................................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C . Matrix of Technical Assistance Resources .............................................................................................. C-1 An Urgent Call to Action This Nation must take immediate and decisive action to intervene in the problem of juvenile violence that threatens the safety and secu- rity of communities-and the future of our children-across the country. Demographic experts predict that juvenile arrests for violent crimes will more than double by the year 2010,‘ given population growth pro- jections and trends in juvenile ar- There is, however, reason for hope. Juvenile violent crime arrests are increasing, but only a fraction of youth (one-half of 1 percent) is ar- rested for violent crimes each year.2 We can interrupt this escalation of violence based on identified posi- tive and negative characteristics- protective and risk factors-that are present or lacking in communities, families, schools, peer groups, and rests over the past several decades. individuals. These factors either (See figure 1.) equip a child with the capacity to Figure 1: Juvenile population and arrest rates Juvenile population growth foreshadows increases in violent crimes by juveniles POPULATION VIOLENT CRIME 10-17 IN 1,000$ INDEX ARRESTS 40 million 400,000 30 million 300,000 20 million 200,000 10 million 100,000 0 0 1980 1990 2000 201 0 Data Source: Analysis based on UCR arrest data and Census Bureau population estimates and projections. Source: Snyder, H., M. Sickmund, and E. be-Yamagata. 1996 (February). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US. Department of Justice. become a healthy, productive individual or expose that child to potential involvement in crime and violence. Of equal importance, communities are learning that they can make dramatic changes in de- linquency levels by taking steps that successfully reduce the risk factors and strengthen the protec- tive factors in children’s lives. In partnership with State and Federal agencies, communities are beginning to mobilize to com- bat juvenile delinquency through prevention, early intervention, and community-building strategies that address local needs. They are tak- ing steps to reduce serious and vio- lent juvenile delinquency by using multi-agency, coordinated ap- proaches and innovative programs and services in the juvenile justice system. In support of these efforts, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion offers The National Juvenile Jusfice Action Plan. The Action Plan, summarized in this document, is an eight-point statement of objectives and strategies designed to strengthen State and local initia- tives to reduce juvenile violence, increase the capacity of the juvenile justice system to respond, and pre- vent delinquency. The primary au- diences for the Action Plan are State and local leaders, juvenile justice practitioners, and community members who are initiating or engaging in these activities and are seeking guidance, support, and resources. Educators, crime victims, law enforcement, service providers, parents, religious orga- nizations, youth, probation officers, judges, community and business leaders, legislators, mayors, and governors-all of these individuals can benefit from and use this plan to coordinate State and local initia- tives and integrate proposed Fed- eral actions and resources into local plans. What We Can Accomplish Together To combat juvenile violence, all citizens must recognize that they can make a difference in their com- munities, both through individual . action and by joining with others in comprehensive, collaborative initiatives. Efforts to reduce juve- nile violence can be as basic as par- ents setting clear expectations and standards for children‘s behavior or as far-reaching as a local govern- ment implementing community oriented policing. Many national organizations are committed to supporting the implementation of community-based anti-violence initiatives and can provide prod- ucts and services related to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. A list of these national organiza- tions appears in Appendix C, Matrix of Technical Assistance Resources. The full Action Plan includes an annotated bibliography that is a comprehensive compila- tion of publications that address juvenile violence. The Action Plan supports State, local, and community-based implementation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) Comprehen- sive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Oflender9 and its recently published Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Iuvenile Offenders: which provide a framework for establish- ing a continuum of programs and services designed to reverse the trend of increased juvenile violence and delinquency. To support implementation of State, local, and community activities, the Action Plan provides: A list of resources that Federal member agencies of the Coordi- nating Council will commit to the eight priority objectives, including training and techni- cal assistance, financial assis- tance, research, evaluation, legislation, and information dissemination. A summary of research that sup- ports the Action Plan’s objectives, which States and communities can use to guide their policy, planning, and communication activities. Model program examples that can be adapted to meet local needs. Information in the Action Plan can help the reader undertake activities such as organizing a neighborhood meeting on the problem of juvenile violence, starting a teen court, sup- porting job training programs for youth, providing opportunities for youth to become involved in service to their communities, developing a conflict resolution or mentoring program, or volunteering as a court- appointed special advocate. Com- munities can also benefit from infor- mation designed to help parents raise their children without abuse, provide safe corridors to ensure safe passage for children on their way to and from school, create a community resource bank listing local organizations that offer coun- seling and other services, get in- volved in neighborhood cleanup activities, and much more. While the Action Plan recognizes the important Federal role of providing support and a national perspective, State, local, and individual commit- ment is critical if these efforts are to succeed. Objectives of The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan The Action Plan is a blueprint for community action designed to address and reduce the impact of juvenile violence and delinquency. It presents a framework for the handling of delinquent offenders, including possible transfer of the most serious and violent offenders to the criminal justice system, and describes programs that in- crease opportunities for youth to have a stake in their future. The Action Plan also provides tools for rebuilding the dependency court system to better assist children who are victims of abuse and ne- glect. Its broad spectrum of strate- gies can help mobilize youth and adults to strengthen their own neighborhoods and inform the public about preventing juvenile violence. No single individual, organization, or agency-in isolation-can ad- dress the causes of juvenile vio- lence. Working together, however, State and local leaders, representa- tives of public and private groups, and individual community mem- bers-including youth-can bring about measurable change based on strategies that work by directing their energies to meet the eight objectives of the Action Plan. The following objectives, all of equal importance, can be achieved by communities that are willing to ad- dress public safety concerns while making a commitment to services for children. Objective 1. Provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanctions and treatment for delinquent juveniles. Safe communities and juvenile ac- countability are central to the Action Plan. It proposes a strong juvenile justice system that provides a con- tinuum of services for juveniles who come into the system for a variety of reasons, such as truancy, homelessness, drug abuse, mental illness, or delinquent offenses. The juvenile justice system must be given the tools to assess the risk the juvenile offender poses to the community, determine rehabilita- tive needs, and provide graduated sanctions and treatment commen- surate with both conduct and needs. It must also be able to meet the needs of dependent, abused, and neglected children and status offenders. The juvenile justice system re- sponse to delinquent conduct should be based on the balanced and restorative justice philosophy, which balances the need for of- fender accountability to the victim and the community, the need to provide for public safety, and the system’s goal of helping youth be- come competent, contributing members of society. However, an effective response to victims‘ con- cerns must be balanced with rea- sonable confidentiality protections for juvenile offenders. The Action Plan emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary as- sessment teams and centers that bring together a broad range of ju- venile service workers (e.g., intake, probation, parole, education, social services, mental health) in a single place. These teams or centers can efficiently perform functions that are required to accurately identify the sentencing, treatment, or reha- bilitative needs of each juvenile and assess risk to the community. Assessment centers offer a system- atic and coordinated way for youth to enter or be diverted from the system that is likely to result in cost-effective, individualized treat- ment plans. A system of graduated sanctions is the recommended mechanism for attaining treatment and account- ability goals for delinquent offend- ers. Graduated sanctions encompass three levels: Immediate intervention (community restitution, day treatment centers, diversion programs, and protective super- vision projects) for first-time delinquent offenders and many nonviolent repeat offenders. Levels of sanctions should be based on consideration of the of- fense and offense history (risk) and the offender’s treatment and rehabilitation needs. The Action Plan provides examples of effective programs designed to systematically identify treatment needs. For example, Family Assess- ment Service Teams, a part of the Norfolk (VA) Police Assisted Com- munity Enforcement effort, use an interagency approach to coordinate resources and improve the effec- tiveness of juvenile services. Re- ports show that crime and fear of crime have dropped markedly in neighborhoods targeted by this program? The Bethesda Day Treatment Center Program in West Milton, PA, provides services to delinquent and dependent juveniles without removing them from their homes. A preliminary study shows recidi- vism rates far lower than State and national norms! Also in Pennsylva- nia, Student Assistance Programs The Bethesda Day Treatment Center Program in West Milton, PA, provides services to delinquent and dependent youth without removing them from their homes. Intermediate sanctions (residen- tial and nonresidential commu- nity-based programs, weekend detention, intensive supervision, probation, wilderness programs, and boot camps) for many first- time serious and repeat offend- ers and some violent offenders. Secure confinement (community confinement in small, secure treatment facilities or, where nec- essary, incarceration in training schools, camps, and ranches) for offenders categorized as violent or repeat serious offenders. (SAP’S) are addressing truancy, school dropout, violence, and drug abuse through education. The de- velopment of effective working re- lationships among education, juvenile justice, law enforcement, school-based probation officers, other social service agencies, and families has been one of the program’s most important accom- plishments. SAP has been imple- mented in 29 Pennsylvania counties in recognition of its success in help- ing students make impressive academic and behavioral gains7 The Florida Environmental Insti- tute (FEI), also known as "The Last Chance Ranch," targets Florida's most serious juvenile offenders. Located in a remote area of the Florida Everglades, FEI offers both a residential phase and a nonresidential aftercare program. Two-thirds of its referrals are adjudicated delinquents from the criminal justice system. Yet, because of its strong emphasis on education, hard work, social bonding, and aftercare, recidivism rates of juveniles who have gone through the program are substan- tially less than rates of traditional training school programs: 30 percent instead of 50-70 percent.* The Action Plan also supports intensive aftercare programs to provide juveniles who are return- ing to the community with high levels of social control and transi- tional support. Strengthened cooperation between schools and probation departments is a critical component of aftercare programming. to address juvenile delinquency. Local leaders can establish a pre- vention policy board to assess risk factors for delinquency; review current juvenile programs, laws, and ordinances; identify gaps in service delivery; and establish priorities for addressing them, in- cluding the development of strate- gies that address gender issues and disproportionate minority confinement. To support State and local efforts, Federal action will: Assist in the development of model State and local programs through training and technical assistance. Ensure that the rights of victims of juvenile offenders are recog- nized. Provide communities with guidance for implementing a comprehensive strategy that reflects both delinquency preven- tion and graduated sanctions. Objective 2. Prosecute certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in criminal court. The purpose of this objective is both to protect the public and to separate certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders from those juveniles who can benefit from treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system. Statis- tics show that a small percentage of the juvenile offender population is responsible for most of the seri- ous and violent juvenile crime? Transferring to criminal court those targeted juvenile offenders who are the most chronic and who commit the most serious and violent crimes enables the juvenile justice system to focus its efforts and resources on the much larger group of at-risk youth and less serious and violent offenders who can benefit from a wide range of effective intervention strategies. However, States and the Federal The Florida Environmental Institute @EO, also known as "The Government should review their Last Chance Ranch, targets Florida's most serious juvenile statutory transfer mechanisms to offenders. Critical tasks for States and local 0 communities are to determine what is being accomplished to prevent juvenile violence and to ensure that a system of graduated sanctions is put in place to provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanc- tions and treatment for delinquent juveniles. Key elected officials, grassroots community leaders, youth groups, crime victims, and other key participants should be included in community planning 8 and implementation of a compre- hensive multidisciplinary strategy 8 Provide model protocols for intake, assessment, and aftercare. Provide research on the effective- ness of alternatives to incarcera- tion, such as boot camps and community-based programs and services. Address and support efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement in secure facilities. Highlight and address issues confronting female juvenile offenders. ensure that they are appropriately applied. The transfer alternative should only be considered for those juveniles whose criminal history, failure to respond to treatment, or serious or violent conduct clearly demonstrates that they require criminal justice system sanctions. We must also remain vigilant about a juvenile's right to effective coun- sel and cognizant of the potentially harmful impact of placing juveniles in adult jails, lockups, and correc- tional facilities, including problems associated with overcrowding, abuse, youth suicide, and the risk of transforming treatable juveniles into hardened criminals. Most of all, a recognition of the continuing need for transfer of juveniles to criminal court must strengthen our resolve to prevent delinquency and intervene early to decrease the risk of future criminal conduct. The Action Plan proposes a two- tier system of extended jurisdiction in the juvenile court for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile of- fenders and consideration of inno- vative blended sentencing options for juvenile offenders under crimi- nal court jurisdiction. This system would permit the transfer of some juvenile offenders contingent upon age, presenting offense, and offense history, allowing greater prosecutorial discretion for the older, more serious offender. State laws should consider appropriate discretionary powers for prosecu- tors to proceed to criminal court as the ages of juvenile offenders and the severity of the offense increase, thereby allowing for individualized case review and decisionmaking. Extended jurisdiction of the juve- nile court can be predicated upon a judge‘s determination that a juve- nile is a serious, violent, or chronic offender based upon the current offense and the juvenile’s prior his- tory in the justice system. The court could be authorized to use this ex- tended jurisdiction to keep an adju- dicated delinquent in the system beyond age 21 if there were a rea- sonable expectation of successful treatment. The use of innovative blended sentencing options can function as a supplement to the provision of extended jurisdiction by author- izing the criminal or juvenile court judge to utilize or, when appropri- ate, to combine juvenile and adult responses into a continuum of sanctions appropriate to the offense history and age of the juvenile. The Action Plan advocates a clear judicial role in either the decision to proceed against a juvenile as a criminal offender or at the disposi- tional stage through discretion in sentencing options, as previously outlined. However, while not advo- cating for statutory exclusion or lowering the age for criminal court jurisdiction, the Action Plan recog- nizes that, in some instances, State law may use more than one transfer mechanism and expressly provide for the imposition only of criminal sanctions for specific classes of offenses at specific ages. If the graduated sanctions model recommended in the Action Plan is fully implemented in a jurisdiction with adequate programming and resources, then the numbers of ju- veniles being transferred into the criminal court or classified for ex- tended jurisdiction should decrease. In the interim, however, a more flexible mechanism is needed that ensures public safety and provides appropriate sanctions for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile of- fenders. With flexibility in court sentencing, the criminal court judge can access juvenile court program- ming as a “last chance” option for these offenders, while also enhanc- ing the supervision of the court and heightening the motivation of the offender, who is accountable to the criminal court and faces a potential prison sentence upon violation of sentencing conditions. Once the juvenile justice system is strengthened to work more effec- tively with the serious, violent, and chronic offender, as advocated in the Action Plan, the number of juve- niles who need to be transferred to the criminal court for public safety reasons should be reduced. The Action Plan presents effective sentencing strategies to help meet this objective while providing flex- ibility and individualized justice. In Minnesota, for example, a blended sentencing law creates a new cat- egory of juvenile offenders called ”extended sentence jurisdiction ju- veniles’’ who receive both a juvenile disposition and a suspended crimi- nal sentence. The criminal sanction can be imposed if a juvenile fails to conform to the requirements of the juvenile disposition. Similarly, Florida’s three-tiered approach gives prosecutors ex- panded discretionary power in making jurisdictional decisions as the ages of defendants and the se- verity of offenses increase.l0 In Florida’s criminal courts, the judge has a variety of sentencing options and can sentence the offender as an adult or as a juvenile. At the Federal level, the Action Plan also suggests examining the advisability of amending the Fed- eral Juvenile Delinquency Code to remove procedural barriers to the transfer of juveniles under Federal jurisdiction for criminal prosecu- tion, including adding prosecutorial transfer authority (direct file) for certain serious and violent offenses. State and local juvenile justice and law enforcement responses to serious and violent juvenile de- linquency are critical. They include prosecuting, adjudicating, and sen- tencing juveniles; implementing transfer mechanisms; and establish- ing and maintaining automated recordkeeping systems in local ju- venile courts. State legislators, vic- tims, child advocates, researchers, and the media also play critical roles in shaping and influencing proposed juvenile justice laws and policies, as well as ensuring that the system is meeting its goals. To support State and local efforts, Federal action will: Promote innovative options for the appropriate maintenance and sharing of juvenile records. Improve targeting, apprehen- sion, prosecution, treatment, and correctional facilities and programs for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Assist States and local govern- ments to identify juvenile of- fenders by offering guidance on appropriate ways to access and maintain juvenile records. Examine transfer statistics and the impact of innovative sentencing options. Develop and support innovative options for the handling of seri- ous, violent, and chronic juve- nile offenders. Review procedural barriers to prosecuting violent juvenile Federal offenders as criminal offenders. Provide training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local prosecutors and judges handling juvenile cases. Objective 3. Reduce youth involvement with guns, drugs, and gangs. Youth access to guns is related to the increased youth homicide rate we are witnessing in this country. A strong relationship between illegal gun possession by juveniles, delinquency, and drug use has been found in an OJJDP-sponsored longitudinal study on the causes and correlates of delinquency. The study found that nearly three-quarters of youth who pos- coalition consisting of law enforce- sessed guns illegally committed ment, human service agencies, and some type of street crime; one-quar- community organizations to focus ter committed a gun-related crime; police efforts in high-crime neigh- and 4 out of 10 used drugs.I1 borhoods by routinely stopping The Kansas City Experiment formed a working group consisting of law enforcement, human service agencies, and community organizations to focus police efforts in high-crime neighbor- hoods. Drug activity appears to exacerbate youth violence, and firearms are more prevalent around drug activ- ity.12 In 1984, the United States saw a dramatic increase in youth gun homicide, coinciding with the introduction of crack cocaine into urban communities. Studies show that as the use of guns by drug-in- volved youth increases, other young people obtain guns for their own protection. This cycle of fear or ”diffusion” theory13 is supported by forthcoming research on the “ecology of danger.”I4 Today, youth gangs exist in nearly every State. One expert estimates that more than 3,875 juvenile gangs with a total of more than 200,000 members are established in the 79 largest U.S. cities.I5 More disturbing is that gang violence has spread from the streets into areas tradition- ally considered safe havens, such as schools. traffic violators, youth in violation of curfews, and individuals in- volved in other infractions of the law. Special gun-intercept teams have proven to be 10 times more cost effective than regular police patrols.’“ A joint effort between the Chicago Police Department and the city Housing Authority Police Depart- ment provides another successful model. Funded by BJA, partners in the Building Interdiction Team Effort (BITE) work together to secure the perimeters of buildings, challenge suspicious persons, patrol and search common areas and vacant apartments, and con- duct searches of occupied units with tenant consent. This concen- trated effort on the part of police is sending a clear message to gangs that these buildings contain family homes and are neither havens for A joint effort between the Chicago Police Department and the Chicago Housing Authority Police Department provides another successful model. The Kansas City (MO) Experiment is a project supported by the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the Kansas City Police Department. These groups have formed a criminal activity nor turf to be claimed. Preliminary results indi- cate that the strategy has improved overall safety and reduced drug trafficking in one housing development and drug-related violence in another.” The Action Plan supports the coordination of Federal, State, and local law enforcement teams to improve investigative efforts and successful prosecution of gun-, gang-, and drug-related cases. It also recognizes that law enforce- ment has taken a lead role in imple- menting juvenilecrime prevention and intervention strategies as part of a comprehensive community oriented policing approach. The Action Plan supports these efforts by promoting youth-focused com- munity oriented policing that is effectively linked with the juvenile justice system and that can contrib- ute significantly to reducing crime, disorder, and fear in communities. The Action Plan also supports implementation of effective gang prevention strategies and the devel- opment and consideration of model juvenile handgun legislation. work of counselors and volunteers, most of whom live in the neighbor- hood, the program has shown sig- nificant success in deterring gang violence and drug use, with 95 per- cent of the participants surveyed involved in educational activities.I8 State and local actions to address gun, drug, and gang violence re- quire a combination of tough and smart law enforcement and preven- tion activities including: seizing firearms from juvenile offenders in school and turning them over to appropriate law enforcement agen- cies for tracing; supporting techno- logical innovations in gun and ammunition manufacturing that will help reduce the accessibility of lethal weapons; developing ap- propriate intervention programs for gang-involved youth; and in- volving youth in planning and Nuestro Centro (Our Center) Gang, Drug, and Dropout Interven- tion Program took a grassroots preventive approach to the problem ofjuvenile violence. Nuestro Centro (Our Center) Gang, Drug, and Dropout Intervention Program in Dallas, TX, inaugurated in 1991 with OJJDP funds, took a grassroots preventive approach to the problem of juvenile violence. Citizens and community leaders in a predominately minority neigh- borhood decided to take back their streets by converting an abandoned fire station into a community-run youth center. Participants in the afterschool program are unem- ployed and undereducated youth affected by drug abuse, gangs, school problems, family problems, physical and sexual abuse, and delinquency. Through the dedicated implementing youth-focused community oriented policing programs. The Action Plan also supports advances in drug and alcohol prevention and treatment strategies as effective anti-violence strategies. To support State and local efforts, Federal action will: Enhance law enforcement capac- ity to respond to juvenile crime and drug trafficking by provid- ing training, technical assistance, and additional funding for anti- drug efforts in public housing. Support interagency gun and drug interdiction and suppres- sion strategies. Get guns out of schools by pro- viding guidance and technical assistance on enforcement of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 and providing alternative educa- tion programs to keep youth sus- pended or expelled for weapons law violations off the streets. Support U.S. Attorneys’ efforts to advance local anti-crime and anti-violence initiatives. Target youth gangs through prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies. Advance youth-focused commu- nity oriented policing through community demonstration projects and technical assistance. Provide information on effective curfew programs for juveniles. Disseminate information on model youth handgun legisla- tion and strategies for reducing gun violence. Provide research on the efficacy of drug abuse prevention and treatment models. Promote the development of ju- venile drug courts that supervise nonviolent juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems. Support community partnership efforts to prevent substance abuse and help youth resist pressure to use drugs. Advance technological interven- tions to reduce gun violence, such as guns that are harder to conceal and have trigger safeties, fingerprint identification, and loading indicators. Objective 4. Provide opportunities for children and youth. Comprehensive neighborhood- based programs that help children develop positive life skills and minimize risk factors, give them support and direction, and create opportunities for community involvement and service have proven to be the most effective de- fense against violent delinquency. Additionally, programs that ad- dress the needs of at-risk youth and juvenile status offenders provide a cost-effective and successful ap- proach to delinquency prevention and intervention and help ensure future public safety. Integrated prevention and inter- vention programs should be initi- ated early in a child's development, must be culturally appropriate, and must target multiple risk factors for delinquency. The Action Plan sup- ports such integrated programs for two fundamental reasons. First, delinquency prevention is cost effective. According to one conservative estimate, the average cost of incarcerating a juvenile for just 1 year is close to $M,000.19 Others put the figure between $35,000 and $64,000." The total cost of a young adult's (age 18-23) serious, violent criminal career is estimated to be $1.1 million.z1 In contrast, the current cost of Head Start's intervention program, which is effective in developing school readiness skills among high-risk children and reduction in later delinquency, is $4,300 per year per child. Similarly, a delinquency prevention program in California produced a direct savings to law enforcement and the juvenile justice system of $1.40 for every $1 spent on prevention." Such savings, when combined with the indirect benefit of producing healthy, engaged, and contributing youth, are invaluable. Second, program evaluations have documented that "prevention egies reduce certain factors that increase the risk that a youth will engage in delinquent or violent behavior, and they strengthen or complement certain protective factors that help youth avoid delinquent behavior and make healthy life choices.*' To successfully reduce youth violence, prevention strategies must engage the entire spectrum of individuals and com- munity systems impacting a young person's life, including families, schools, peers, and other adults in the community. Effective prevention strat- in increasing rates of school atten- dance and improving academic performance. In addition, Clubs in public housing projects have reduced the juvenile crime rate by 13 percent." The BJA-funded Teens as Resources Against Drugs project inspired teens in New York City, Evansville (IN), and three South Carolina com- munities to successfully fight drug activity through peer teaching, mes- sages on murals, fine arts produc- tions written and choreographed by youth, and community events such as fairs and substance-free New Year's Eve parties. One measure of success is that the initial Federal funding has been replaced by local resources, and most of the program sites remain active today.% Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, IL, has developed a Mentoring and Rites of Passage program designed The hdison Square Boys & Girls Club in Brooklyn, NY, helps strengthen protective factors for children. Effective strategies combine pro- grams such as truancy reduction, mentoring, conflict resolution, afterschool tutoring, vocational training, cultural development, recreation, and youth leadership in multipurpose family resource and neighborhood centers in school and community settings. The Madison Square Boys & Girls Club in Brooklyn, NY, is a notable example of a program that strengthens protective factors for children by providing cooperative educational activities. According to a Columbia University study, Boys & Girls Clubs have been effective to assist adolescents in their transi- tion to adulthood. Mentors meet with small groups of young people to discuss self-concept, sexual awareness, communications, and appreciation for cultural heritage. Program evaluators ask participants to report on their social interactions, incidents involving violent behav- ior, hospital visits related to vio- lence, and calls to police about violence in the housing project. Delinquency prevention initiatives at the Federal, State, and local levels are key elements in the Action Plan. By preventing delinquency, com- munities can reduce juvenile crime and deter youth from eventual Obiective 5. involvement in crime as adults, de- BrGak the cycle of creasing both the current threat to public safety and future levels violence by addressing of funding for prosecution and youth victimization, incarceration. To support State and local efforts, Many violent juveniles have them- Federal action will: ” abuse, and neglect. selves been victims of neglect, ~~~ abuse, and violence. There is a clear Launch an initiative to address link between violence in the home the problem of youth outside the and a juvenile’s later involvement educational mainstream. in violent delinquencyz7 Provide mentoring opportunities The Acfion Plan proposes strength- for youth. ening three priority areas to help Provide guidance in implement- of violence. First, it advocates tion programs. communities interrupt the cycle ing school-based conflict resolu- strengthening families’ capabilities The Elmira (NY) Home Visitation Program provides maternal and child health services to low-income, unmarried teens during pregnancy and the first 2 years of their children’s lives. Increase school safety to im- prove opportunities for youth academic success. Provide youth with activities that encourage positive youth development. Provide training and opportuni- ties for youth employment through education, the Job Corps, and programs focusing on high-technology skills. Establish and support family- based community centers that integrate service delivery through a range of promising prevention programs. Provide opportunities for youth to serve their communities. Coordinate and disseminate information about Federal crime prevention programs. to supervise and nurture the posi- tive development of their children in nonviolent homes and com- munities. Family strengthening programs can provide support through assistance with effective parenting skills, home visitation, and teen-parent groups designed to prevent child abuse and neglect and to foster healthy development. Second, if family strengthening efforts fail and abuse and neglect occur, juvenile and family courts can play a critical role in identifying cases of child abuse and neglect, making referrals to supportive services, and providing followup. To be effective, child protective service and dependency court personnel must be well trained and have manageable caseloads. They must also be equipped with sensitive intake protocols that allow them to identify abuse and neglect cases, thoroughly investigate them, and provide prompt and appropri- ate services. Third, for children at substantial risk for continued familial abuse and neglect, the Action Plan recom- mends stable, high-quality foster care to prevent further victimiza- tion. Equally importantly, it calls for timely planning for permanent placement or reunification to avoid multiple placements during a child’s formative years. The Elmira (NY) Home Visitation Program is a successful program that strengthens families’ abilities to supervise and nurture the posi- tive development of their children. It provides a wide range of mater- nal and child health services to low- income, unmarried teens during pregnancy and the first 2 years of their children’s lives. The program has resulted in a 75-percent reduc- tion in cases of child abuse and ne- glect and a 32-percent reduction in emergency room visits for 2-year old children.28 Children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect need safe shelter, counseling, and assistance to adapt socially and academically. In Cincinnati, OH, members of the Hamilton Juvenile Court, the Cincinnati Bar Association, and the Junior League developed ProKids to serve as court appointed special advocates (CASA’s) for abused and neglected children. When ProKids was created in 1981, only 25 programs in the Nation used community volunteers as child advocates for abused and ne- glected children. By 1994, ProKids had trained more than 450 child advocate volunteers, and 1,200 children have been served by the program.29 Early prevention programming is supported by some of the strongest research on program effectiveness. State and local implementation of early prevention programming can include fostering substance abuse treatment approaches for addicted parents, supporting adolescent pregnancy prevention programs, or providing mental health and treatment services and parenting skills for incarcerated abusers, including young offenders who are victims of abuse, to interrupt the cycle of violence. To support State and local efforts, Federal action will: Improve juvenile and family court handling of child abuse and neglect cases by disseminat- ing information to communities on model dependency court programs and protocols. provide support for the develop- ment and enhancement of local CASA’s and funding for multidisciplinary teams at children’s advocacy centers. Objective 6. Strengthen and mobilize communities. Juvenile violence stems in large part from a breakdown of family and community structures. Every community has the capacity and resources to address this breakdown by nurturing strong families, pro- viding social support systems, and reinforcing healthy cultural norms and values. Too often, however, In Cincinnati the Hamilton Juvenile Court, the Cincinnati Bar Association, and the Junior League developed ProKids to serve as court appointed special advocates (CASA’s) for abused and neglected children. Enhance local efforts to investi- gate and prosecute child abuse and neglect cases, including child abuse fatalities, and strengthen child protective services by promoting inter- disciplinary efforts. Strengthen at-risk families through family support services and fund comprehensive health, educational, nutritional, social, and other services that give children a healthy start. Support community-based services that reduce family violence and victimization. Provide training and technical services are not developed, coordi- nated, or integrated to support these resources, leading to frustra- tion and ineffective efforts to build positive community institutions. Mobilizing and strengthening communities means enabling residents to recognize and solve their own problems and creating opportunities for everyone to take responsibility for finding solutions. Effective problemsolving requires involvement by adults and youth, working in partnership with local service providers, to assess prob- lems and set priorities and to ensure that scarce energies and resources are used wisely. and policies as well as on condi- tions that place children at risk for adolescent problems. Second, all members of the community can apply their expertise where it is most effective. Community mobilization holds the promise of investing every local resident in solving what is truly a shared goal: helping young people grow up to maximize their potential and re- duce their likelihood of involve- ment in violence and delinquency. Federal and State governments can assist communities by showing them the most effective ways to tap into fiscal and human resources. There are many examples of com- munities that have reduced despair and fear, involved a wide variety of citizens, and produced concrete results to improve circumstances for their children and youth. The Oakland (CA) Community Organi- zation brought together local citi- zens, law enforcement, and municipal regulatory agencies to eliminate drug activity in their neighborhood. They organized a neighborhood cleanup and closed down more than 300 drug houses.M In the Texas City Action Plan To Prevent Crime (T-CAP), the National Crime Prevention Council worked with seven municipal governments, local leaders, private entities, and citizens to adopt and implement strategies to reduce violence. Nearly 600 people contributed time and effort to the process, logging over 30,000 volunteer hours in 12 months. The results of T-CAP were mani- fested in many ways, including assistance to strengthen agencies A communitywide approach to the formation of a business crime serving children and their reducing youth violence and council and improved communica- families. delinquency is promising for two tion in crime-besieged neighbor- reasons. First, it affects the entire hoods. In one city, the perspectives social environment by focusing of the T-CAP coalition became on community norms, values, the basis for reorganizing the city * Improve services to children who are victims of abuse and other crimes by continuing to police department and for the efforts can also include: using the creation of a citywide resource Federal communications infrastruc- center for crime prevention infor- ture to gather information about mati~n.~' successful prevention and interven- tion programs that can be adapted OJJDP's Title V Initiative, Incentive to a local implementation strategy; Grants for Local Delinquency engaging in neighborhood crime Prevention Programs, provides watches and cleanups; and enforc- an example of effective resource allocation combined with training. During 1994, the ntle V Initiative distributed grants to 49 States and 6 Territories to promote local 1 ing local ordinances, housing codes, health and fire codes, anti- nuisance laws, and drug-free rental clauses in residential and business environments. The Oakland Community Organization brought together neigh- borhood residents, law enforcement, and municipal regulatory agencies to take action to eliminate drug activity. planning and attract local financial and human resources. Nearly 2,500 participants attended OJJDP-spon- sored training sessions and learned how to implement an effective pre- vention planning framework, de- sign new approaches to interagency collaboration, and conduct valuable risk and resource The Action Plan supports this pro- cess of developing partnerships on many levels. It advances a new paradigm that calls upon each community resident to play a role in preventing juvenile violence. The keys to success lie in adult guidance, youth responsibility, a responsive media, and an engaged private sector. The Coordinating Council is a Federal model of interdisciplinary cooperation and leadership, encour- aging each State and community to tailor these Action Plan steps to identified State and local priorities, needs, and resources. The primary goal of community action is to involve citizens and create partnerships. Community To support State and local efforts, Federal action will: Support concentrated strategies to improve distressed neighbor- hoods and reduce violence citywide through programs such as Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC), Operation Weed and Seed, the Comprehensive Com- munities Program (CCP), and HOPE VI public housing Urban Revitalization Grants. Link Federal and private initia- tives at the community level, for example, by funding the SafeFutures program in selected jurisdictions. Advance communities' use of the public health approach to assessing and reducing violence. Hold satellite video teleconfer- ences to share information on successful delinquency prevention and juvenile justice system programs that can be implemented at the local level. Encourage youth and adults to contribute to the safety of their communities. Improve the existing communi- cations infrastructure with ef- forts such as Partners Against Violence Network (PAVNET) and utilize state-of-the-art tech- nology to enable Federal, State, and local governments to share information about effective strat- egies and current research. Establish a center to coordinate the delivery of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention training and technical assistance. Promote collaborative funding for programs among Federal agencies and public and private funding sources. Objective 7. Support the development of innovative approaches to research and evaluation. Juvenile delinquency and violence statistics come from both the juve- nile justice system and data on delinquent behavior generated by other disciplines. Ideally, data collection systems should comple- ment and enhance each other. For example, analysis of juvenile arrests should reveal information about causes of delinquency and entry into the juvenile courts and correc- tions systems. One goal of this objective is the effective coordina- tion and integration of data and statistics. To enhance evaluation and research efforts, the Action Plan advocates innovative approaches in three critical areas: national statistical information and systems on the nature and extent of juvenile delin- quency and violence; longitudinal research to strengthen our under- standing of the complex relation- ships between risk and protective factors; and rigorous evaluation of programs designed to address juve- nile delinquency. In each of these areas, we must develop data collec- tion instruments that are sensitive to ethnicity, culture, and gender and that can better measure the complete context of juvenile delinquency. Efforts to improve juvenile justice statistics and research will include an OJJDP plan to collect and ana- lyze national indicators on risk and protective factors; expand juvenile custody information systems and include data on juvenile detention populations; build a knowledge base on criminal justice system handling of juveniles; coordinate data collection among the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare systems; and improve exist- ing data collection systems and eliminate duplication of effort. In addition, the Action Plan recom- mends that Federal agencies support or continue efforts to strengthen public and private research on the causes and corre- lates of violence; the role of drugs in delinquency; the nature and extent of youth gangs; the system response to juvenile sex offenders; and youth development. The Action Plan advocates strong support for a juvenile program evaluation strategy that includes the following critical elements: Making evaluation funding an integral part of program development. Using evaluability assessments and constructing logic models. Enhancing local evaluation capacity. Linking evaluation findings to program development and practice. Groups at State and local levels should engage in and support re- search and evaluation to ensure accurate and useful program re- sults. The Action Plan encourages individuals and projects to develop linkages with colleges and universi- ties that can provide the expertise, staffing, or funding to conduct research on local youth violence concerns and program evaluation. The Action Plan also supports ex- panding and coordinating manage- ment information systems across youth-serving agencies, involving youth or community members in surveying residents about their needs, and recording the develop- ment of projects so that others may replicate successes. To support State and local efforts, Federal action will: Build local and Federal evalua- tion capabilities through infor- mation dissemination, training, and technical assistance. Implement a 5-year plan to im- prove national statistical data on violence and delinquency. Develop a 5-year comprehensive plan to coordinate research related to violence and delin- quency. Implement additional long-term studies to increase understand- ing of the causes and correlates of youth crime and violence. Address gaps in youth gang, gun, and drug research. Examine the impact of different processing options for offenders in the juvenile justice system. Translate research findings into program development and practice. Integrate evaluation into demonstration projects. Objective 8. Implement an aggressive public outreach campaign on effective strategies to combat juvenile violence. A well-designed public information campaign is essential to the success of any juvenile violence reduction plan. The Action Plan advocates a national and local partnership with the media to mount a public infor- mation campaign designed to per- suade young people to avoid violence and dangerous lifestyles, to teach adults about proven anti- violence strategies, and to involve all segments of the community in the fight against juvenile violence. The Action Plan also supports an aggressive media campaign that will help juvenile justice system and social service professionals be more effective. Communicating the types of actions that work in ad- dressing juvenile violence to a wide variety of audiences will motivate community leaders and residents to work collaboratively. One goal of public information ef- forts is to change public perception about the nature and extent of juve- nile violence and inform the com- munity about strategies that have proven to be successful in reducing or preventing juvenile violence. An effective public information cam- paign can also convince adults and youth that their active involvement can make a difference. Communities that conduct local targeted public information cam- paigns should include an evalua- tion mechanism that will provide important data on the effectiveness of their efforts. These data will help not only with planning for future public campaigns but also with the design and implementation of local anti-violence public awareness events. Evaluating public aware- ness efforts also serves as a mecha- nism for attracting local financial and other resources. Several organizations have accumu- lated substantial experience in media campaigns and partnerships and are available to assist local jurisdictions. The National Crime Prevention Council, for example, distributes an action kit, Partner With the Media To Build Safer Com- munities, that includes reproducible materials to help communities reach the public with their anti- crime, anti-violence messages.33 The National Citizens' Crime Pre- vention Campaign conducted a large-scale public education effort, symbolized by McGrufP, the "crime dog." An independent evaluation in 1991 determined that the campaign can generate individual action at a cost of only 2.9 cents per person. The campaign's public service mes- implement an annual event such as sages generate $50 or more in do- a drug awareness fair. Elected offi- nated print space and air time for cials and community leaders can every $1 of Federal funds spent in write opinion and editorial pieces their development.M or sponsor radio public service The Turn Off the Violence campaign engaged the help of local print and electronic media to convince residents that violence is an unacceptable way to resolve conflict. The Turn Off the Violence cam- announcements. Together, these paign, inaugurated in Minneapolis- efforts can help to get the message St. Paul, MN, engaged the help of out. local print and electronic media to convince residents that violence is To support State and local efforts, an unacceptable way to resolve Federal action will: conflict. The campaign also encour- aged media to reevaluate its own violent entertainment program- ming. This grassroots initiative, which required limited funding, has spread throughout Minnesota and is being adopted by other States and Highlighting successes and sharing positive information about youth violence reduction efforts serves as a catalyst for encouraging commu- nity residents to address juvenile violence problems in their own neighborhoods. The local media can bring attention to the complex issues that surround juvenile crime and violence and can play a role in publicizing positive youth activi- ties. Young people can create and distribute newsletters, produce a cable teen talk show, or plan and Disseminate public service an- nouncements that help to influ- ence young people's choices to live healthy lifestyles and make all residents aware of the critical roles they can play in reducing delinquency and youth violence. Develop a document on ways community residents can reduce juvenile violence. Produce a videotape and CD-ROM on reducing juvenile violence. Produce a media message on reducing gun violence. Link successful local initiatives with a national public informa- tion campaign. Reduce Tomorrow’s Violence: Take Action Today The sobering projections about the future of juvenile violence underscore the need for strong, immediate, well-planned, and deci- sive action to intervene early with efforts to prevent younger children from following in the self-destruc- tive footsteps of many of their older brothers and sisters. At the same time, it is imperative that we effec- tively respond to that small per- centage of juvenile offenders who repeatedly victimize the commu- nity and who account for the vast majority of serious and violent delinquent acts. We must take immediate steps to improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to respond to juvenile of- fenders. If we fail to respond to their needs, the potential costs to society in human lives and produc- tivity will be an onerous and tragic burden to future generations. In taking action, States and localities have a variety of choices that are both critical and difficult. Funds must be allocated for juvenile justice program options, ranging from secure facilities to day treatment, probation placements, and improve- ments in research and data collec- tion and dissemination about juvenile violence issues. Also, funding must be made available for a broad spectrum of effective youth development and delin- quency prevention programs, in- cluding family strengthening and afterschool programs, childcare for low-income working families, com- munity policing efforts, summer recreation and job opportunities for low-income youth, and Head Start. In addition to funding programs, there are many actions that States and local communities can take that build on their commitment to the safety, health, development, and well-being of children. By starting new initiatives, implementing the objectives, accessing the resources, and engaging in the activities of the Action Plan, leaders at the Federal, State, and local levels working to- gether can make a difference. The Nation can ill afford to make the wrong choices. The Action Plan presents examples of community commitment to solutions that work. We have an opportunity to build on these accomplishments and implement them in our own communities. Copies of The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan Report (NCJ 157106) can be obtained by sending in the order form at the end of the Sum- mary or by calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638- 8736. The Action Plan can also be or- dered via the Internet by sending an e-mail to askncjrs@aspensys.com. Endnotes 1. Snyder, H., M. Sickmund, and E. Poe-Yamagata. 1996 (February). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 2. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 3. Wilson, JJ., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion, U.S. Department of Justice. 4. Howell, J.C. ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the Compre- hensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Wash- ington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 5. Pratt, G. 1994 (December). Community-based comprehensive wrap-around treatment strategies (paper presented at the Arizona Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Research Symposium. Phoenix, w- 6. Howell, 1995. 7. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 8. Howell, 1995. 9. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995. 10. Thomas, C.W., and S. Bilchik. 1985. Prosecuting juveniles in crimi- ~l courts: A legal and empirical analysis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 76(2):439-479. 11. Huizinga, D. et al. 1994. Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion, U.S. Department of Justice. 12. American Psychological Asso- ciation. 1993. Violence and Youth: Psychology’s Response. Washington, D.C. 13. Blumstein, A. 1994. Youth Vio- lence, Guns, and the Illicit-Drug In- dusty. Pittsburgh, PA Carnegie Mellon University. 14. Fagan, J. 1995. What Do We Know About Gun Use Among Adoles- cents? Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado. 15. Spergel, I. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. New York Oxford University Press. 16. Sherman, L.W., J.W. Shaw, and D.P. Rogan. 1995 (January). The Kansas City Gun Experiment. Re- search in Brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. 17. Delinquency Prevention Works. 18. Ibid. 19. Cohen, M.A. 1994. The Monetay Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 20. Camp, G.M., and C.G. Camp. 1990. Corrections Yearbook: Juvenile Corrections. South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute. 21. Cohen, 1994. 22. Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta- analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook et al., eds. Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 23. Delinquency Prevention Works. 24. Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano. 1993. Communities That Care: A Risk-Focused Approach to Re- ducing Adolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle, WA: Developmental Re- search and Programs, Inc. 25. Howell, 1995. 26. Given the Opportunity: How Three Communities Engaged Teens As Resources in Drug Abuse Prevention. 1992. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council. 27. Thornberry, T.P. 1994 (Decem- ber). Violent Families and Youth Vio- lence. Fact Sheet #21. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 28. Delinquency Prevention Works. 29. ProKids: Speaking Up for Abused and Neglected Children in Hamilton, Ohio (brochure). 1994. Cincinnati, OH: ProKids. 30. Rosenbaurn, D.P. et al. 1994. Community Responses to Drug Abuse: A Program Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. 31. Taking the Offensive To Prevent Crime: How Seven Cities Did It. 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council. 32. 1994 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1995 (March). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion, U.S. Department of Justice. 33. This kit is available from the National Crime Prevention Council, 1700 K Street NW., Second Floor, Washington, DC 20006-3817. 34. O'Keefe, G.J., D. Rosenbaum, and P. Lavrakas et al. 1993. The Social Impact of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. Wash- ington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. 35. National Crime Prevention Council. 1994. Working Together To Stop the Violence: A Blueprint for Safer Communities. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Appendix A Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Background The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93- 415, as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP's mission is to provide na- tional leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice. OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice system as a whole, as well as to benefit in- dividual youth-serving agencies. OJJDP also provides direction and resources to the juvenile justice community to help prevent and control delinquency throughout the country. Section 206 of the JJDP Act, as amended, established the Coordi- nating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention as an independent organization in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The primary function of the Coordinating Council is to coordinate all Federal programs that address juvenile delinquency, detention or care of unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited children. The Council is composed of an equal number of Federal and practi- tioner members. The nine Federal members include the Attorney Gen- eral; Secretaries of Health and Hu- man Services, Labor, Education, and Housing and Urban Development; the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National Service; Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service; and any other officers of Federal agencies who hold sig- nificant decisionmaking authority as the President may designate. Therefore, the Director of the President's Crime Prevention Council has been added as an ex- officio member of the Council. The nine non-Federal members are practitioners in the field of juvenile justice who are appointed, without regard to political affiliation, by the Speaker of the House of Representa- tives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the President. As mandated by the JJDP Act, the Coordinating Council is responsible for the following actions: Examining how programs can be coordinated among Federal, State, and local governments to better serve at-risk children and juveniles. Making recommendations to the President, Congress, and the OJJDP Administrator on the co- ordination of overall policy and development of priorities and objectives for all Federal juvenile justice and delinquency preven- tion programs and activities. Ensuring that the practices of Federal agencies are consistent with the mandates of the JJDP Act. Reviewing and making recom- mendations regarding any joint funding proposal undertaken by OJJDP and any other agency represented on the Council. Reviewing reasons why Federal agencies take juveniles into cus- tody and making recommenda- tions about how to improve Federal practices and facilities for holding juveniles in custody. Making recommendations on the OJJDP Administrator's long-term plan and the imple- mentation of overall policy and strategy to carry out the plan. Appendix B Working Group Participants The following individuals served on a working group of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to develop the Action Plan. They discussed issues, contributed information on relevant research, resources, and programs, and reviewed several drafts. Practitioner Members Lisa M. Beecher Detective Portland Police Department The Honorable James L. Burgess Presiding Judge 18th Judicial District of Kansas John Cahill Program Coordinator Clark County Family and Youth Services Department John A. (Jack) Calhoun Executive Director National Crime Prevention council Nancy G. Guerra, Ed.D. Associate Professor of Psychology University of Illinois at Chicago Michael J. Mahoney President John Howard Association Rose W. Washington Executive Director Berkshire Farms Center U.S. Department of Justice Beth Wilkinson Principal Deputy Chief for Criminal Division Terrorism and Violent Crime Julie E. Samuels Director Office of Policy and Management Criminal Division Analysis Victor Stone Senior Legal Advisor Criminal Division Donna Enos Acting Assistant Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys Ada Melton Director for the American Indian Office of the Assistant Attorney and Alaska Native Affairs Desk General Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention John J. Wilson Deputy Administrator Gina E. Wood Director Concentration of Federal Efforts Program Betty Chemers Director Research and Program Development Division Ron Laney Director Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Marianne Tomecek Assistant to the Director Executive Office of United States The Honorable Gordon A. Martin, Jr. Associate Justice Massachusetts Trial Court Joan Hurley Assistant Director Research and Program Attorneys Development Division Roxbury District Court Offrce of Justice Programs Katherine Deoudes Mary Ann Murphy Manager Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Special Assistant to the Administrator Regional Center for Child Abuse Deaconess Medical Center Reggie Robinson Eileen M. Garry Deputy Assistant Attorney General Special Assistant to the Administrator and Neglect Sarah Ingersoll Special Assistant to the Administrator Donni LeBoeuf Senior Program Manager Robin Delany-Shabazz Program Manager Training and Technical Assistance Division Jim Burch Program Manager Special Emphasis Division Barbara Allen-Hagen Program Manager Research and Program Development Division Catherine Doyle Information Specialist Information Dissemination Unit Bureau of Justice Assistance Steve Rickman Director Crime Support Division Robert Brown Chief Crime Prevention Branch Bureau of Justice Statistics Jay Hoover Special Assistant to the Director Offce for Victims of Crime David Osborne Special Assistant to the Director Sharon English Crime Act Coordinator National Institute of Justice Chriss Wetherington Special Assistant to the Director Offce of Community Oriented Policing Services Diana Fishbein, Ph.D. Senior Researcher Community Relations Service Gail Padgett Associate Director Office of Technical Assistance and Support George Henderson Senior Program Specialist/ Attorney Advisor Office of Technical Assistance and Support Gil Chavez Southwest Regional Director Atkins Warren Central Regional Director Ada Montare Mid-Atlantic Conciliation Specialist Immigration and Naturalization Service Ruben Cortina Director Detention Management Branch Elizabeth Herskovitz Detention and Deportation Officer Detention Management Branch U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Peter Edelman Acting Assistant Secretary Planning and Evaluation Carol Williams Associate Commissioner Children’s Bureau Administration for Children and Families Elaine Johnson Director Center for Substance Abuse Substance Abuse and Mental Prevention Health Services Administration Angela Duran Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Emily Novick Social Science Research Analyst Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Mike Ambrose Senior Program Specialist Children’s Bureau Administration for Children and Families Joe Bock Family Services Program Specialist Family and Youth Services Bureau U.S. Department of Labor David Lah Chief, Evaluation Unit Office of Policy and Research US. Department of Education William Modzeleski Director Safe and Drug-Free Schools DonnaMarie Marlow Senior Education Program Safe and Drug-Free Schools Specialist US Department of Housing and Urban Development Michael B. Janis General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing Sonia L. Burgos Director Crime Prevention and Security Division Elizabeth Cocke, Ph.D. Project Analyst Office of Crime Prevention and Security Division Office of National Drug Control Policy Fred W. Garcia Deputy Director for Demand Reduction John Gregrich Senior Policy Analyst Corporation for National Service Susan Stroud Director Office of Federal Partnerships and Special Programs Learn and Serve America Bob Hussey Federal Liaison Counsel Office of Federal Partnerships and Special Programs U.S. Department of the Treasury Herb Jones Director, Project Outreach Office of the Under Secretary Enforcement Joseph J. Vince Chief, Firearms Enforcement U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Division and Firearms Lewis P. Raden Special Agent in Charge Firearms Enforcement Branch U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Dale Armstrong Program Manager Firearms Enforcement Branch U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms President’s Crime Prevention Council Greg Everts Special Counsel Appendix C Matrix of Technical Assistance Resources The following organizations provide products and services related to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Topical resources and types of services available are indicated in the matrix. Please feel free to contact these organizations directly for more information. Academy for Educational Development (AED) Center for Youth Development and Policy Research 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20009 202-884-8267 202-884-8404 (fax) American Academy of Pediatrics 141 Northwest Point Boulevard P.O. Box 927 Elk Grove, IL 60009 708-228-5005 708-228-5097 (fa) American Bar Association (ABA) Juvenile Justice Center 740 15th Street NW., 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-662-1 506 202-662-1 501 (fax) American Correctional Association (ACA) 4380 Forbes Boulevard Lanham, MD 20706 8OC-222-5646 301-918-1800 301-91 8-1 900 (fax) American Prosecutors Research 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-549-9222 703-836-31 95 (fax) Institute (APRI) Annie E. Casey Foundation 701 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 41 0-547-6600 410-547-6624 (fax) 230 North 13th Street Big BrotherdBig Sisters of America Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-5674394 (fax) Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Atlanta, GA 30303 100 Edgewood, Suite 700 404-527-7689 (fax) Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms US. Department of the Treasury 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20226 21 5-567-7000 404-527-7100 202-927-7777 202-927-8 1 1 2 (fax) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 300-688-4252 301-251-5212 (fax) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) '.O. Box 6000 %ckville, MD 20849-6000 300-732-3277 31 0-792-4358 (fax) Center for Civic Education (CCE) 51 46 Douglas Fir Road =alabasas, CA 91302 318-591-9330 (fax) :enter for Media Literacy I962 Shenandoah -os Angeles, CA 90034 31 0-559-2944 31 0-559-9396 (fax) Clearinghouse Clearinghouse 318-591-9321 e - e Center for Substance Abuse Prevention PREV-LINE National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) P.O. Box 2345 Rockville, MD 20847-2345 800-729-6686 301-468-6433 (fax) Center for the Study and Prevention University of Colorado at Boulder Campus Box 442 Boulder, CO 80309-0442 303-492-8465 303-443-3297 (fax) Center to Prevent Handgun Violence 1225 Eye Street NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 202-371 -961 5 (fax) Centers for Disease Control and National Center for Injury Prevention 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop K60 Division of Violence Prevention Atlanta, GA 30341-3724 404-488-4362 404-488-4349 (fax) of Violence 202-289-7319 Prevention (CDC) and Control I Chapin Hall Center for Children University of Chicago 131 3 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 312-753-5940 (fax) Child Welfare League of America 440 First Street NW., Suite 310 Washington, DC 20001-2085 202-638-4004 (fax) 312-753-5900 202-638-2952 Children’s Defense Fund 25 E Street NW. Washington, DC 20001 202-628-8787 202-662-3550 (fax) Coalition for Juvenile Justice 1211 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 414 Washington, DC 20036 2024674864 202-887-0736 (fax) Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence 100 Maryland Avenue NE., Suite 402 Washington, DC 20002 202-544-71 90 202-544-721 3 (fax) Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice 5550 Friendship Boulevard, Suite 330 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 301-492-5929 301-492-5984 (fax) Community Research Associates, Inc. 41 East University Avenue, Suite 300 Champaign, IL 61820 217-398-3120 217-398-3132 (fax) Corporation for National Service 1201 New York Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20525 202-565-2781 (fax) 202-606-5000 EO. Box 2090 800-223-DARE Los Angeles, CA 90051 Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. 130 Nickerson, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98109 206-286-1 462 (fax) Eastern Kentucky University College of Law Enforcement Training Resource Center 300 Stratton Building Richmond, KY 40475-3131 606-622-6264 (fax) 206-286-1805 606-622-1 498 e e 7 e - e e Educational Development Center, InC. Center for Violence and Injury Prevention 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 0215&1060 617-969-7100 61 7-244-3436 (fa) Educators for Soclal Responsibility 23 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138 800-370-251 5 617-864-5164 (fax) 61 7-492-1 764 Family Resource Coalition 200 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1520 Chicago, IL 60604 312-341-0900 312-341-9361 (fax) Florida Atlantic University Balanced and Restorative Justice Project 220 SE. Second Street University Tower 305-760-5668 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 305-760-5673 (fax) Fox Valley Technical College Criminal Justice Department P.O. Box 2277 1825 North Bluemound Drive Appleton, WI 54913-2277 800-648-4966 414-735-4757 (fax) ~~ Handgun Control Incorporated 1225 Eye Street NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 202-898-0792 202-371-9615 (fax) Hands Net 20195 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 120 Cupertino, CA 95014 408-2574500 408-2574560 (fax) e ~ Midwest Regional Children’s Advocacy Center LaRabida Children’s Hospital and Research Center 65th Street at Lake Michigan Chicago, IL 60649 312-363-6700, ext. 421 312-363-7664 (fax) National Adolescent Health Box 721 420 Delaware Street SE. Minneapolis, MN 55455 612-624-8644 612-626-2134 (fax) Resource Center National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 339 Washington, DC 20001 202-434-8000 202-434-8008 (fax) National Association for Mediation 1726 M Street NW., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036-4502 202-466-4764 202-466-4769 (fax) in Education (NAME) National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD) and the National Prevention Network (NPN) 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 642 Washington, DC 20001 202-783-6868 202-783-2704 (fa) National Center for Community School of Criminal Justice 560 Baker Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Policing (NCCP) 51 7-355-2322 51 7-432-1 787 (fax) e e e National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) 710 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-3000 412-227-6950 412-2274955 (fax) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 550 Arlington, VA 222014052 800-843-5678 703-235-3900 703-235-4067 (fax) National Center for State Courts (NCSC) 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185 804-220-0449 (fax) National Chiid Welfare Resource Center P.O. Box 1501 0 Portland, ME 041 12 207-780-581 7 (fax) 804-253-2000 for Organizational Improvement 207-780-581 0 National Clearinghouse on P.O. Box 13505 Silver Spring, MD 2091 1-3505 800-621-4000 301-608-8098 30140843721 (fax) Families and Youth National Committee to Prevent 332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600 Chicago, iL 60604 31 2-663-3520 Child Abuse 31 2-939-8962 (fa) National Conference of State Legislatures 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 303-830-2200 303-863-8003 (fax) e e National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) University of Nevada EO. Box 8970 Reno, NV 89507 702-7844012 702-784-6628 (fax) ______ National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) 685 Market Street, Suite 620 San Francisco, CA 94105 41 5-896-6223 415-896-5109 (fax) ~~ National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association (NCASAA) 2722 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite 220 206-328-8588 Seattle, WA 98102 206-323-81 37 (fax) National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) 1700 K Street NW., Second Floor Washington, DC 20006-3817 202-466-6272 202-296-1 356 (fax) National Criminal Justice Association 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 608 Washington, DC 20001 202-508-3859 (fax) National Governors' Association (NGA) 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite'267 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5320 202424-531 3 (fax) (NCJA) 202-347-4900 National Institute for Citizen 71 1 G Street SE. Washington, DC 20003 Education In the Law (NICEL) 202-5464644 202-5464649 (fax) National Institute of Justlce National Criminal Justice Reference P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 800-851-3420 Service (NCJRS) 301-251-5212 (fax) National Institute for Dispute 1726 M Street NW., Suite 500 Washington, DC 2003+4502 202-466-4764 202-466-4769 (fax) National Juvenile Detention 301 Perkins Building Richmond, KY 40475 606-622-6259 Resolution (NIDR) Association (NJDA) 606-622-2333 (fax) National League of Cities (NLC) 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 550 Washington, DC 20004 202-626-3000 202-626-3043 (fax) National Legal Resource Center for 740 15th Street NW., 9th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-662-1755 (fax) National Network of Children’s 1319 F Street NW., Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20004 202-6394597 202-639-051 1 (fax) Child Welfare Services 202-662-1 748 Advocacy Centers, Inc. (NNCAC) National Office for Social Responsibility Law-Related Education in Juvenile 222 South Washington Street Justice Settings Alexandria, VA 22314 703-549-5305 703-836-7269 (fax) National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) 1757 Park Road, NW. Washington, DC 20010 800-TRY-NOVA 202-232-6682 202-462-2255 (fax) National PTA 330 North Wabash, Suite 21 00 Chicago, IL 6061 1-3690 31 2-67c-6782 31 2-670-6783 (fax) National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice University of Iowa School of Social Work 11 2 North Hall Iowa City, IA 52242-1223 31 9-335-2200 31 9-335-2204 (fax) National Resource Center for Family 200 South Michigan Avenue, 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 312-341-9361 (fax) Support Programs 312-3414900 ~ National Resource Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NRCCAN) 63 lnverness Drive East Englewood, CO 801 12-51 17 ~~ 800-227-5242 303-792-9900 303-792-5333 (fax) National Resource Center on Child 2204 Whitesburg Drive, Suite 200 800-KIDS-006 Huntsville, AL 35801 205-5344868 205-5344883 (fax) National School Boards Association Alexandria, VA 22314 1680 Duke Street 703-838-6722 Sexual Abuse (NRCCSA) (NSBA) 703-838-7590 (fax) National School Safety Center (NSSC) Pepperdine University 41 65 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 290 Westlake Village, CA 91362 805-373-9977 805-373-9277 (fax) National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) Alexandria, VA 2231 4-3490 1450 Duke Street 703-836-7827 703-51 9-8567 (fax) National Training and Technical Assistance Center 1 1990 Grant Street, Suite 31 8 Northglenn, CO 80233 303451-1 049 (fax) 30-57-9947 National Victim Center 21 11 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 703-276-2880 703-276-2889 (fax) National Youth Employment Coalition 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 71 9 Washington, DC 20036 202-775-9733 (fax) (NYEC) 202-659-1064 National Youth Gang Center Institute for Intergovernmental Research P.O. Box 12729 Tallahassee, FL 3231 7 904-385-0600 904-386-5356 (fa) Northeast Regional Children's Advocacy Center 4000 Chestnut Street, Second Floor Philadelphia, PA 19104 21 5-387-9500 21 5-387-951 3 (fa) Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) Off ice for Victims of Crime Resource Cente P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 800-627-6872 301-251-5212 (fa) Office of Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 800-638-8736 Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 301-251-5212 (fa) Office of National Drug Control Policy Drugs and Crime Clearinghouse P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 800-666-3332 301-251-5212 (fa) Pacific Center for Violence Prevention San Francisco General Hospital San Francisco, CA 941 10 41 5-285-1 793 41 5-282-2563 (fa) Partnership for a Drug-Free America 405 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10174 21 2-922-1 560 21 2-922-1 570 (fa) Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center 151 1 K Street NW., Suite 61 1 Washington, DC 20005 202438-2898 202-638-291 9 Police Executive Research Forum Washington, DC 20036 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 930 202-466-7826 (fa) Police Foundation 1001 22nd Street NW., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037 202-466-7820 202-833-1 460 202-659-9149 (fa) Southern Regional Children’s Advocacy Center 2204 Whitesburg Drive, Suite 201 Huntsville, AL 35801 800-747-8122 205-533-0523 (fax) University of Utah Family Strengthening Programs Health Education Department Salt Lake City, UT 841 12 215 HPER-N 801-581-7718 801-581-5872 Western Regional Children’s 301 West 13th Pueblo, CO 81003 71 9-543-0383 Advocacy Center 800-582-2203 Yale Child Study Center 47 College Street, Suite 218 Child-Centered Community Policing Program 203-785-7047 New Haven, CT 06510 203-785-6860 (fax) YOUTH ALIVE! Summit Medical Center 3012 Summit Avenue, Suite 3670 Oakland, CA 94609 51C-4444191 510-4444195 (fax) Youth Crime Watch of America Dadeiand Towers North, Suite 100 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard 305-670-2409 Miami, FL 33156 305-6703805 (fax) Youth Law Center 11 4 Sansome Street, Suite 950 San Francisco, CA 941 04 41 5-543-3379 41 5-956-9022 (fax) e JUST BEG Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has developed The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan, which provides greater detail of each key objective described in the Summary. The Action Plan also includes an annotated bibliography--an exhaustive compilation ofjuvenile justice resources--as well as a listing of program catalogs and directories and a summary of selected commissions and task forces. The Action Plan Report, along with the Summary, will become important tools to support community efforts to fight against juvenile violence and victimization. Everyone involved in juvenilejustice, including educators, crime victims, law enforce- ment officers, service providers, parents, religious organiza- tions, probation officers, judges, community and business leaders, legislators, mayors, and governors can benefit from the Action Plan. To order your free copy of the Action Plan Report (NCJ 1571061, contact: The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, e-mail: askncjrs@aspensys.com, fax: 301-251-5212 800-638-8736 ,' I, To order a copy of Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan Report (NCJ 157106), please complete and send the following information to the address above: Name Title Organization Address City State ZIP Telephone ( 1 Crime Prevention Act Of 2000 County of San Diego Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan January 2001 Submitted to the California Board of Corrections by the San Diego Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council San Diego County Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Board of Supervisors County of San Diego Bill Horn District 5, Chair Greg Cox District 1 Pam Slater District 3 Dianne Jacob District 2 Submitted by Alan M. Crogan, Chief Probation Officer On behalf of the County of San Diego and the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Ron Roberts District 4, Vice Chair January 2001 Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Alan M. Crogan, Chief Probation Officer James Milliken, Presiding Judge David Bejarano, Chief Bill Kolender Joan Stein Gregory Cox Marc Kuritz Henry Coker *Vaughn Jeffery *A1 Medina *Alfred0 Aguirre Yvonne Campbell Chuck Lee Jack Campana Augustine Gallego Representative Elinor Smith Roseann Myers Leslie Hine-Rabichow, Executive Director Kitty Burbridge, Executive Director Michael Carr, Executive Director *Shirley Cole, Executive Director *Walter Philips, Executive Director Kathryn Lembo, Executive Director Sandra McBrayer, Executive Director Sophonya Simpson, Executive Director Frank Goldsmith Julie Rocha Larry Fitch, Executive Director Plez Felix Azim Khamisa John Hughes *Represents Technical Work Group Member Probation Department, Chair Superior Court, Juvenile Division San Diego Police Department Sheriffs Department District Attorney’s Office Board of Supervisors Office of Supervisor Ron Roberts Public Defender’s Office Chief Administrative Office HHSA, Alcohol & Drug Services HHSA, Mental Health Services HHSA, Children’s Service Bureau County Office of Education San Diego Unified School District San Diego Community College District Ninth District PTA Juvenile Justice Commission Commission on Children, Youth & Families San Diego Association of Non-Profits Escondido Youth Encounter Social Advocates for Youth (SAY-SD) Lifeline Community Services San Diego Youth & Community Services South Bay Community Services Children’s Initiative Youth Congress Business Representative Business Representative San Diego Workforce Partnership Community-At-Large Member Community-At-Large Member Faith Community Technical Work Group Members Patric Ashby, Health & Human Services Agency Joanne Bushby, Commission on Children, Youth & Families Anne Goldberg, Superior Court, Juvenile Division Bruce Klier, Juvenile Forensics Barbara Miller, Juvenile Forensics Patrick O’Brien, Alcohol & Drug Services Anita Paredes, Writer, Consultant Susan Pennell, Criminal Justice Research Division, San Diego Association of Governments Jane Peterson, Probation Department David Simmons, Comprehensive Strategy Coordinator, Children’s Initiative Bill Southwell, Sheriff Sara Vickers, Probation Department Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: Chapter 11: Background Summary of San Diego County’s Juvenile Justice System ........................................................ 1-1 Shared Vision and Mission ..................................................... 1-2 Purpose and Membership of San Diego’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council ................................. 1-3 JJCC’s Role in Ongoing Comprehensive and Collaborative Planning Efforts in San Diego ....................... 1-5 Description of San Diego’s Existing Continuum Of Responses to Juvenile Crime .......................................... 1.6 Major Accomplishments since the 1997 Local Action Plan. ................................................................ 1-6 Present Continuum of County-Based Responses To Juvenile Crime ............................................................. .I. 14 Present Role of Collaborations and/or Partners (Public and Private) in Solutions ........................................ 1.38 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Present System ................ 1-43 Identification and Prioritization of Neighborhoods. Schools. and Other Areas in the Community Facing Significant Risk from Juvenile Crime ............................... 11-1 Juvenile Arrests ...................................................................... 11-1 Violent and Property Crime Rates ......................................... 11-3 Referrals to Probation by Zip Code ....................................... 11-3 Gang Membership .................................................................. 1 1.5 Community Risk Factors ........................................................ 11-5 Review of Strategic Plans. Reports. and Data ........................ 11-8 Summaries of Relevant Strategic Plans. Task Force Conclusions About Review of Other Agency Reports ......... 116 I. Community Risk and Needs Survey .................................... 11-17 Survey Results ...................................................................... 118 I. and Other Agency Reports ................................................ 11-10 Countywide Risks ................................................................ 118 I. Countywide Needs ............................................................... 119 I. Existing Programs to Meet Identified Needs ....................... 11-20 Identification of At-Risk Communities and Neighborhoods .................................................................. 11-22 i Chapter 111: Chapter IV: List of Tables Identification of Current Needs/Issues in the System Which Would Provide for a More Comprehensive Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime ................................................................. 111-1 Strategy for Providing a More Comprehensive Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime .................... .I1 1.11 Goals. Objectives and Outcomes of the CMJJP ................... 111-5 Programs Proposed for CPA 2000 Funding ...................... . 1 Challenge Grant I. Breaking Cycles Graduated Sanctions .......................................................... IV- 1 Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court. ....................................... 1v-5 Repeat Offender Prevention Program .................................. 1v-9 Challenge Grant 11. Working to Insure and Challenge Grant I. Community Assessment Team Prevention Program ........................................................ IV- 17 Community Youth Collaborative Prevention Program.. ....................................................... 1v-2 1 Truancy Suppression Project .............................................. 1v-25 Nurture Girls Success (WINGS) ..................................... 1v-13 1-1 Existing Continuum of Juvenile Justiceservices .......................................... 1-17 1-2 Law Enforcement Juvenile Diversion Programs ............. 1-25 Intervention and Treatment Programs ........................ 1-27 1-3 Representative Sample of Additional Prevention, 1-4 Summary Profile of Child and Youth Resources 11- 1 Arrest Rates per 1. 000 population. by Level 11-2 Total Number of Juvenile Felony Arrests by 11-3 Total Number of Juvenile Misdemeanor and Listed in United Way’s Directions 2000 .................... 1-36 Of Offense. 1995. ‘98. ’99 ......................................... 11-1 Law Enforcement Jurisdiction. 97 & 99 .................... 11-1 Status Arrests by Law Enforcement Jurisdiction. 97 & 99 .................................................. 11-2 Per 100.000. by Law Enforcement Jurisdiction ........ .I 1.3 11-4 Five Highest Annualized FBI Crime Index Rates 11-5 Referrals to Probation by Zip Code in 1999. 11-6 Referrals to Probation by Zip Code in 1999. Top 5 Grouped by Continguous Area and Highest 15 Zip Codes ................................................. 1 1.4 Smaller City ............................................................... 11-4 ii List of Tables (continued) List of Figures Appendix 11-7 Estimated Gang Members in San Diego County, 11-8 Summary of Communities That Care Risk By Law Enforcement Jurisdiction ............................ 11-5 Profile Data, Community Indicators ......................... 11-6 11-9 Top 5 School Drop Out Rates, by District ..................... 11-7 Academic Performance Index, 2000 ......................... 11-7 11- 1 1 Who Responded to the Survey .................................. .II-18 Survey Respondents ............................................... 11- 19 Survey Respondents .............................................. .II- 19 11-14 Needs by Region ........................................................ 11-20 11- 10 San Diego County Schools with the Lowest 11- 12 Top 5 Countywide Risks Identified by 11- 13 Top 5 Countywide Needs Identified by 111-1 Current Needsfissues in Present System.. ................... 111-2 11- 1 Juvenile Risk Indicators .............................................. .II-23 A. One Page Listing of Proposed Programs B. San Diego Regioml Resiliency Checkup C. San Diego County Report Card D. CPA 2000 Community Survey E. Excerpts from San Diego Association of Governments Crime in the San Diego Renioq Mid Year 2000 Report iii Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Planning Activities T he Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (CPA 2000) provided San Diego with another opportunity to review its progress and conduct an in-depth evaluation of San Diego’s juvenile justice system. Planning focused on identifying and prioritizing neighborhoods, schools and communities facing significant juvenile crime and public safety risks, and refining our local juvenile justice strategy to provide a more comprehensive continuum of responses to juvenile crime. Results are contained in the Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan. Planning efforts in San Diego commenced prior to Governor Davis signing the AB 1913 legisla- tion on September 7, 2000. A Technical Work Group was formed during the regularly scheduled August meeting of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC). This Technical Work Group was comprised of volunteer council members, the Comprehensive Strategy Coordinator, and Pro- bation staff. The Technical Work Group was charged with gathering information, reviewing the information and formulating specific recommendations for the full Council to consider. A consultant writer was hired in September to assist with the application. In order to accomplish its mission, the Technical Work Group decided to meet every other Thurs- day commencing August 15,2000, from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and attend the Board of Corrections presentation in Ontario, California, on October 13, 2000. The final Board of Corrections guide- lines regarding application for CPA 2000 fbnds were not available until the end of October. Information from many sources was gathered and considered by the Technical Work Group for the development of the local Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP). A commu- nity risk and needs survey was constructed and distributed in September 2000 to 720 individuals throughout the county representing a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Responses were received from almost half of those surveyed in time to be analyzed for consideration by the JJCC. Results of the survey are reported in Chapter I1 of the CMJJP. Documents examined included the first Local Action Plan (LAP) compiled in 1997 that accompa- nied the Challenge Grant I application; the San Diego Comprehensive Strategy for Youth, Fami- lies and Community (1998); and the updated LAP (1 999) that was submitted with the application for Challenge Grant I1 funding. Arrest, probation referral, and placement data were available from the San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division’s evaluation efforts for Challenge Grants I and 11, and from Probation records. Dozens of strategic plans, reports, and data from public entities, community collaboratives and other sources were gathered and reviewed to provide additional information regarding regional and community risk factors, needs and issues. 1 County of San Diego During the planning process, the Technical Work Group met a total of six times and provided up- dates and recommendations to the full Council on September 20, October 11, November 1 and November 15,2000. On November 1 , 2000, the JJCC voted to recommend to the Board of Super- visors that CPA 2000 hds be used to (1) continue existing and proven programs in which grant hnds were expiring, and (2) to augment existing and proven programs to meet the needdgaps in the identified communities. After reviewing the compiled information and the recommendations of the Technical Work Group, the full Council, with its combined hundreds of years of experience and education relating to juvenile justice, identified top risk factors for juvenile delinquency in San Diego: Top Risk Factors for Juvenile Delinquency in San Diego Family Management Problems Substance Abuse/Availability of Drugs 0 Negative Peer Influence 0 Lack of School Commitment Based upon these risk factors, the Top NeeddGaps in the system were identified: Top Needs/Gap Areas in San Diego Family Services 0 Positive peer influence Truancy Programs/Services 0 Mentoring Competency Building On November 1, 2000, the JJCC identified their number one program priorities that would meet the needs of San Diego’s juvenile justice system. The first priority was the expiring grant pro- grams and augmentations for those programs. The Technical Work Group was directed to come back on November 15 with recommendations for additional proven programs that would meet the requirements of the legislation as well as the needs of the San Diego Community. On November 15,2000, the JJCC identified and prioritized seven programs for CPA 2000 fimding and adopted the Draft CMJJP. Non-abstaining JJCC members voted unanimously to support and recommend the plan to the Board of Supervisors. History and Background Addressing Juvenile Crime in San Diego The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) was created in 1996 pursuant to SB 1760 leg- islation. Twenty-two original members were appointed by the Board of Supervisors in November 1996, representing expertise from all areas in the juvenile justice system in San Diego County. 2 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan San Diego was awarded a planning grant to complete the SB 1760 Local Action Plan in late 1996. During this process, efforts were made to coordinate the Comprehensive Strategy planning process with SB 1760, and San Diego’s Local Action Plan was published in 1997. By early 1997, San Diego’s first Local Action Plan (LAP) to prevent and reduce juvenile crime was completed and submitted along with a Challenge Grant I proposal. San Diego was successful in this endeavor and began implementation of the Breaking Cycles Demonstration Project in July 1997. Breaking Cycles consisted of two components: A graduated sanctions custody program and a prevention program named the Community Assessment Teams. Fourth year funding expires June 30,2001, and Crime Prevention Act 2000 funds will be requested to continue and augment these programs with additional staff and services. Additional Challenge Grant funds became available in 1998. This provided San Diego with another opportunity to apply for Challenge Grant I1 funds, this time to offer gender-responsive services for at-risk young female offenders at the front end of the system. The 1997 LAP was up- dated, published and submitted in 1999, along with a proposal to implement the WINGS (Working to Insure and Nurture Girls’ Success) program. The WINGS program commenced July 1 , 1999, and is currently funded by the Challenge Grant program through June 30,2002. CPA 2000 funds will be requested to augment the program with four specially trained probation officers to provide the case management services for all 601 and 602 female wards and informal supervision cases in the program. This augmentation is expected to provide better outcomes for girls in the areas of education and substance abuse, and reduce the number of girls entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system. San Diego’s JJCC continues to provide oversight for Challenge Grants I and 11, and the proposed Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan. To avoid duplication of effort, the JJCC has assumed the responsibility of guiding and overseeing the Comprehensive Youth Services Act (TANF programs) and the Juvenile Accountability and Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) that allows for an automated information sharing system between the Courts, schools, probation, law enforcement, and community-based organizations. Again, in December 2000 the JJCC membership was broadened beyond the requirements of W&I Code 749.22, to add representatives from education, business, and the human service providers, both public and from the non-profit community. This diverse group continues to meet every month to refine San Diego’s response to prevent and reduce juvenile crime and has made great strides to improve outcomes for San Diego. Strategy Implementation Since development of the first Local Action Plan in early 1997, many of the identified gaps in the system have been addressed. However, the strategies and programs listed below have had the most impact on San Diego County. Structured Decision-Making/Assessment Strategy The San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup is a one-page research-based screening and assessment tool being used across systems (probation, law enforcement, schools, service 3 County of San Diego providers, etc.) in San Diego County since May 1998. Over 20 community and county agency participants commenced development of this universal assessment tool for San Diego in Octo- ber 1997. The Checkup was piloted in the Community Assessment Team program and is now used throughout the juvenile justice system. The Checkup uses the concept of a blood pres- sure check, providing assessment information to families so they can take steps to avoid harm. Assessment results outside of the normal range alert families to existing conditions that might indicate the likelihood of delinquency problems. In many instances, that information is enough to motivate change in families. An automated, copyrighted version of the Checkup that scores and graphically portrays resiliency was released for use in 1999. A consulting firm is currently collecting data and performing scale validity tests on San Diego data. Information about the R&R is included in Appendix D. Gender-Responsive Services Strategy Board of Supervisors Policy A-132. In 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted Board Policy A-132, ‘Gender Responsive Services for Sun Diego County’s Juvenile Female Offenders and At-Risk Young Women and Girls, ’ with the ultimate goal of providing gender-responsive ser- vices for at-risk young women and girls to assist them to be successful in life and prevent them from penetrating into the justice system. Out-of-Home Placement Strategy The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the County of San Diego Probation Depart- ment, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Juvenile Court, provided leadership and sup- ported this strategy that 1) reduces residential facility placements, 2) achieves net County cost savings, and 3) creates new or expand local placement programs. From March 1995 to June 2000, residential facility placements declined by 52% (from 428 to 205). Local Juvenile Placement Trust Fund savings amount to $3.1 million from this out-of-home placement strategy in FY 1999-00. Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Strategy ‘Treatment on Demand.’ The County’s Alcohol and Drug Services Division manages and implements an array of services for adolescent substance abusers at all points of the contin- uum. In addition to an existing allocation of $1.5 million, funding for adolescent alcohoVdrug treatment services was increased by over $1.8 million annually by the Board of Supervisors in 1997. This increased the number of youth served annually from 600 to 3,000, and reduced the wait time for services from 12 weeks to 2 weeks or less. Five additional Teen Recovery Cen- ters were established, and residential capacity for adolescents was expanded, including 20 new detoxification beds. Prevention Programs Community Assessment Teams. The Community Assessment Teams (CATS) provide strength-based family assessment, prevention and intervention services for at-risk youth and families throughout the county. The County contracts with community agencies to provide the services in collaboration with a Probation Officer assigned to each CAT. Assessment and in- 4 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan home crisis support services are provided to nearly 1,500 youth and their families annually. The San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup, initially piloted in the CATS, is now used throughout the juvenile justice system. The majority of clients successfully complete case management plans and are either employed or in school at program exit. To date, 99% have not entered the justice system within six months after receiving services. Truancy Intervention Project. Eight school districts contract with the Probation Department for truancy intervention officers at elementary, middle and high school campuses. These pro- bation officers provide primary intervention services to youth and their families experiencing family management and school problems. They also sit on School Attendance Review Teams and School Attendance Review Boards, and train school personnel about the juvenile justice system. Intervention Program Challenge Grant 11, Working to Insure & Nurture Girls’ Success (WINGS) is a county- wide girls-only program operated by community-based organizations. The goal of WINGS is to reduce the number of females entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system by sup- porting and empowering girls and their families to access and receive community resources. Regionally based multi-disciplinary teams provide family-centered, home visiting interven- tions and comnunity activities for juvenile female offenders referred to probation and appro- priate for diversion, informal, or at-home formal probation. The Checkup is used to screen eligible particjpants, and is re-administered to evaluate progress toward reducing risk factors. A multi-disciplinary team is comprised of a team leader, home visitors, family advocates, youth representatives and specialists in sexuaVphysica1 abuse, substance abuse, and parent education. Suppression Program Repeat Offender Prevention Program (formerly Project 8%), is a collaborative project between the Probation Department as the lead agency, HHSA, and community-based agencies. A multi-disciplinary team of a probation officers, social worker, psychologist, and substance abuse counselor provide integrated services to families of at-risk youth to minimize delin- quency and costs of processing youth through the juvenile justice system. The team works in a family resource center in collaboration with the County Office of Education and the Union of Pan-Asian Communities (UPAC). ROPP provides prevention services to siblings and family preservation services to families. A family functioning assessment is completed upon entry and at six month intervals during the program. Risk factors are declining and protective fac- tors are increasing as measured at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups, most notably in the areas of education and criminality, the highest areas of risk for these youth. Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court. The Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court is part of the con- tinuum of services for wards with substance abuse issues. It is a partnership between the Juve- nile Court, the Alternate Public Defender, District Attorney, Treatment Providers, police de- partments, the Sheriff s Department and Probation. The goals of the Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court are to reduce substance abuse and delinquency. Adolescent substance abuse treat- 5 County of San Diego ment is an integral and necessary component of the Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court program. ‘Treatment on Demand’ is discussed later in these accomplishments. Incapacitation -Graduated Sanctions Program Challenge Grant I, Breaking Cycles Graduated Sanctions is a custody program that serves 500 high-risk youth, ages 13-18, 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 assesses risk and needs and evaluates program progress. With the probation officer as case manager, Breaking Cycles provides a seamless continuum of services and graduated sanctions, and the ability to move the probationer up or down the continuum without returning to Juvenile Court, providing there is no new arrest. Placement decisions include all graduated sanctions components, from own home supervision through incarceration. Current Conditions in the Juvenile Justice System Based upon the information presented by the Technical Work Group, and on the broad depth of juvenile justice experience of its members, current needs and issues in San Diego’s juvenile justice system were identified by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council on November 1,2000. The issues described in the table below need to be addressed in order to enhance the quality of life for youth and their families so that they may achieve significance and belonging in ways beneficial to a society that fhctions with social equality and mutual respect. 6 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Current Needs or Issues in the Present System Family Services (comprehensive, broadly defined by each region) Parent Education and Training (including gender-specific issues) 0 Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention ~ ~~~ Truancy ProgramdServices 0 Intensive supervision of 601 wards Academic enhancement, tutoring Positive Peer Culture/lnfluence 0 Gang Prevention Addressing Hate Crimes Positive after school activities, Academic enhancement, tutoring recreation Mentoring Adult Mentoring Peer Mentoring/Support Groups Competency Building Character building Decision-making skills Goal setting Career development Communication skills Values clarification 0 Life skills Literacy 0 Independent Living Skills Programs Proposed for CPA 2000 Funding The following pages of this Executive Summary and Chapter IV of the CMJJP present the seven existing proven programs that are proposed for hnding in San Diego under the Crime Prevention Act of 2000. These programs will serve about 6,500 youth and their families who are at risk of entering in or continuing in the juvenile justice system. Keeping in mind the common themes that support a more comprehensive continuum of responses to juvenile crime, the current needs and issues listed above will be addressed and woven into the proposed programs. Specifically, juve- nile wards and their families will receive additional substance abuse treatment, parenting training and mentoring, and truancy prevention services will be targeted to 601 wards. 7 County of San Diego CHALLENGE GRANT I, BREAKING CYCLES GRADUATED SANCTIONS Program Existing Program cost CPA Cost Earned Interest Total CPA Cost Total Project Cost 2,870,974 1,200 820,000 3,690,974 $4,456,322 Replaces grant funds that expire Augments the existing program Increases level of service 613 010 1 Breaking Cycles is a multi-agency, geographically diverse custodial program designed to improve the juvenile justice system and community response to juvenile offenders through a system of graduated sanctions, with a focus on community-based treatment to reduce juvenile crime. The program offers a continuum of services for high-risk youth based on assessed risk and need to de- termine the level of supervision and intervention. Parents participate in the assessment process and assist in developing individualized case plans. Youth and families move through a continuum of custody and non-custody options (GRF, JRF, YDC, Reflections, and the Community Unit). Breaking Cycles is based on OJJDP’s comprehensive strategy and has been operational for three years. According to research, programs that implement graduated sanctions that address alcohol and drug use, school truancy issues and school behavior problems are effective in reducing substance abuse and juvenile crime. A multi-disciplinary team of probation officers, mental health workers, educators, alcohol and drug specialists, youth and family counselors provide services to youth and families. Staff link youth and families with mental health services, the County Office of Education, community-based organizations, law enforcement agencies, Juvenile Court and the juvenile justice system. Case management data are shared by all partners. Data are also tracked through automated systems such as the School Information System (SIS), REJIS and the JCMS system. Information is shared at multi-disciplinary team meetings. A Parent Advisory Board meets monthly. The Juvenile Jus- tice Commission, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, and the County Board of Supervisors receive regular updates. Semi-annual reports are provided to the Board of Corrections. Breaking Cycles is an existing program currently funded by Challenge Grant I (expires 6/30/01), a required match, and an overmatch (County General Fund). CPA 2000 fhds that replace the expiring grant hds and a portion of the required match will begin being spent on July 1,200 1. CPA 2000 funds that augment the existing program with additional staff, contract services and equipment will begin being spent on April 1 , 200 1. Total annual per capita costs of the program are $3,714. Total CPA annual per capita costs are $3,076. 8 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan JUVENILE DELINQUENCY DRUG COURT Program Replaces grant funds that expire ## Served , Amount Existing Program increases level of service + 30 $1,875,066 Total Project Cost Increases number served and 160 $1,497,066 CPA Funds 613 010 1 130 $645,220 cost Augments existing program The Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court serves non-violent wards of the Juvenile Court who were ordered to substance abuse treatment and subsequently had three non-compliant events, i.e., test positive for drugs or alcohol, fail to attend treatment or refuse to participate in treatment. The pro- gram stresses swift and certain consequences for failure to comply with court orders and provides incentives to stay sober. The goal is to decrease substance abuse and reduce juvenile crime by providing a continuum of substance abuse treatment services. Research indicates that implementing an integrated continuum of graduated sanctions is effective in reducing substance abuse and juvenile crime. Collaborative partners include a Juvenile Court Judge, Deputy District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Officer, Juvenile Recovery Special- ist, District Attorney Investigator, a Police Officer and input from the minor’s parentslguardians. Eight substance abuse treatment providers located at 26 sites throughout the County of San Diego have contracts, Memorandums of Agreement or Memorandums of Understanding to provide services to youth committed to the program. Drug Court data are compiled in a Management Information System (MIS) that is shared at multi- disciplinary team meetings with partners. Data are tracked through automated systems such as the School Information System (SIS), REJIS and the JCMS system. Regular program updates are provided to the Juvenile Justice Commission, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, and the County Board of Supervisors. Drug Court is an existing proven program. Upon approval of the Board of Corrections, the fifth Drug Court session will commence March 1 , 2001. Probation staff will be recruited, hired and trained com- mencing March 1,200 1. The CPA hds used to replace the expiring grants will be effective July 1 , 2001. Existing contracts will be amended in February and March 2001, and the augmented program will be hlly operationalized by July 1,2001 Total annual per capita costs of the program are $1 1,719. CPA annual per capita costs are $9,357. 9 County of San Diego REPEAT OFFENDER PREVENTION PROGRAM (ROPP) Program # Served Amount Existing Program + 15 $1,169,132 Total Project Cost Increases level of service 83 $423,400 CPA Funds Augments existing program 68 $745,732 cost Increases number served ROPP serves first time wards, under 15 years of age, who meet the ‘8% Criteria’ for serious, chronic, violent juvenile offenders. Wards are high risk in at least three of four risk categories (Crime, Educa- tion, Community ties and Family). Multi-disciplinary teams (Probation Officer, Social Worker, Psy- chologist, and a Substance Abuse Specialist) provide integrated services to families of at-risk youth to minimize delinquency and costs of processing youth through the Juvenile Justice System. The goal of the program is to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors through early identification, multi- disciplinary assessments, and ‘wraparound’ services. As a result, the need for detention beds, out-of- home placements, and jail and prison beds should be sigmfkantly reduced. Research indicates that children who become chronic, repeat offenders are dramatically different from youth who are arrested once and do not return to juvenile court. ROPP is based on research from suc- cessful outcome measures attributed to the Orange County Probation Department (Schumacher, M. & Kurtz, G., 2000. 8% Solution. Preventing Serious, Repeat, Juvenile Crime, CA: Sage Publications). Service integration by ROPP falls under the treatment portion of graduated sanctions on the probation continuum. A multi-disciplinary team of collaborative partners provides resources in the community to match the needs of at-risk minors. Partners attend regular meetings. Formal written agreements with collaborating agencies, i.e., contracts, memorandums of agreement, and memorandums of understanding, are utilized for service provisions. ROPP data are collected in a Management Information System (MIS) that is shared with partnering agencies from the Probation Department, Health and Human Services, the FACTOR Center, County Oflice of Education, Juvenile Court, community schools, community-based agencies, and the Union of Pan Asian Communities (WAC). Automated systems include the School Information System (SIS), REJIS and the Juvenile Case Management System (JCMS). Regular updates and reports are presented to the Board of Corrections, Juvenile Justice Commission, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, the Board of Corrections, and the County Board of Supervisors. ROPP is an existing program. With the Board of Corrections approval, current contracts will be amended in February and March 2001. Staff will be hired commencing April 1,2001, trained during the month of June, and the augmented program will be fully operationalized by July 1,200 1. Total annual per capita costs of the program are $14,086. CPA annual per capita costs are $5,101. 10 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan CHALLENGE GRANT II, WORKING TO INSURE AND NURTURE GIRLS SUCCESS (WINGS) Program # Served Amount Existing Program CPA Funds Augments existing program 600 $2,474,7 1 1 same $2,845,511 Total Project Cost 600 $370,800 cost Increases level of service This Challenge Grant I1 project targets young females who have recently entered the juvenile justice system. Contract service providers use a family-centered, home-visitation platform based on the Cali- fornia Safe and Healthy Families (Cal-SAHF) “Best Practices” approach. Service providers engage the girls and their families in a mutual effort to increase family communication, competency, and access to resources in the community. WINGS staff address prevention, intervention and treatment needs for enrolled girls. Goals of the program include reducing the number of females entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system, increasing resiliency so that school attendance and performance improves, and reduc- ing substance abuse. Research shows that accomplishing these goals will decrease juvenile arrest rates, probation violation rates, and the rate of incarceration among girls. National and California based research illustrate the need for gender-specific programs for adolescent girls in the juvenile justice system. The program is modeled after the California Safe and Healthy Families (Cal-SAHF) Best Practices Model. A multi-disciplinary team includes a team leader, home visitors, and specialists in sexuaVphysica1 abuse, substance abuse, and parent education. Family advocates and youth representatives round out the teams. Formal written agreements, i.e., contracts, memorandums of understanding and memoran- dums of agreement are established with staff from HHSA, Mental Health, Probation and community- based organizations. WINGS data are collected in a Management Information System (MIS) that is shared with partnering agencies, including local schools, community based organizations, mental health clinicians and mem- bers of the Juvenile Justice System. Weekly and monthly meetings are conducted with members of the WINGS collaborative network. In addition, regular program updates are shared with the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Juvenile Justice Commission and the County Board of Supervisors. Semi-annual and annual reports are provided to the Board of Corrections. The program is currently operational. Contract amendments will be completed by March 200 land the augmentations will be hlly implemented by July 2001. WINGS is an existing Challenge Grant program, funded through June 2002. CPA funds will be used to augment the existing program effective March 1 , 2001. Annual per capita costs of the program are $4,743. CPA annual per capita costs are $61 8. 11 County of San Diego CHALLENGE GRANT I, COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT TEAMS (CATs) Program # Served Amount Existing Program + 1700 $5.404.360 Total Proiect Cost Increases level of service 3200 $3,622,760 CPA Funds 0 Increases number served cost Augments existing program 1500 $1,78 1,600 CATs are prevention-focused partnerships between the County Probation Department and community-based organizations. CATs are located in the North Coastal, North Inland, East, South, and Central San Diego regions. CATs provide prevention services for youth with chronic behavior problems that put them at risk of entering the juvenile justice or dependency systems. Youth between the ages of 8-17 are served with full family involvement. Program goals are to assess and link at-risk families with community resources and prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice or dependency systems. Successfil crime prevention programs could potentially reduce, or at least slow, the growth in long-term corrections and law enforcement costs. There is evidence that community-based models are generally effective at preventing crime. Referrals are generated from law enforcement, schools, and community based organizations. Program services are provided by multi-disciplinary teams from a variety of community agencies. CATs enhance the continuum of care by providing prevention and treatment services to youth and their families. Contracts, Memorandums of Agreement, and Memorandums of Understanding are already in place with partner agencies. Information and data collection is available to system partners by accessing automated programs such as REJIS and JCMS. Annual, semi-annual and routine updates are provided to the Board of Corrections, Juvenile Justice Commission, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, and the County Board of Supervisors. CATs is an existing program currently funded by Challenge Grant I (expires 6/30/01), a required match, the California Endowment and an overmatch (County General Fund). CPA 2000 funds that augment the existing program with additional contract services will begin being spent on April 1 , 2001. CPA 2000 funds that replace the expiring grant funds will begin being spent on July 1 , 2001. Total annual per capita costs of the program for total project funds are $1,689. CPA per capita costs are $1,132. 12 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan COMMUNITY YOUTH COLLABORATIVE (formerly Title V Prevention Grants) Program Amount” # Served ~~ Existing Program same $750.000 TOTAL with CPA 940 $750,000 CPA Funds cost Replaces expiring grant fimds 940 $750,000 Growing reports of violence among youth and concerns for their safety have resulted in the perception that violence and discipline are the American public schools biggest problem. Community prevention programs, such as Title V, address school violence issues. Research supports the assertion that inten- sive activities in sports, music, and art result in lower delinquency rates than recreation programs that offer only minimal services. The Community Youth Collaborative program will incorporate five geographically distributed Title V delinquency prevention grants that will expire March 3 1 , 2001. Mira Mesa Epicenter provides positive peer influence, Twister Cafk, the Music Industry Institute, Information Technologies, Youth2Youth Hotline and a community service program. The Mesa Margarita Youth Delinquency Prevention Program is an Oceanside drop-in youth center for after school activities and alternatives to gang membership. The center provides educatiodacademic enhancement, substance abuse education, positive adult role models and youth activities. R.E.A.C.H. North Spring Valley is a teen center for after school activities providing role models based on “positive youth constructs”. The center encourages community attachment, competency, self-efficacy, pro- social norms, bonding, positive identity development and community service. Linda Vista Leaders is a school-based, year-round program that trains youth in conflict resolution, anger management, prob- lem solving, public speakmg, goal setting and fine arts. The National City Community Capacity Building program provides leadership and mentoring training, an after school program at a mid- dle school, and family managementhkills building training and education. Activities assist youth to develop a life vision, positive relationships, community service opportunities, and life skills. These sites target a total of 940 at-risk youth to increase: 1. Commitment to school through academic assistance and training activities. 2. Involvement in positive peer influence through neighborhood based centers offering a range of 3. Attachment to their communities and neighborhoods by creating opportunities for self- positive activities as alternatives to delinquent behavior. advocacy and productive involvement in the community at large. Information and data collection will be shared at meetings with the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the County Board of Supervisors. Semi-annual reports will be provided to the Board of Corrections. The program is currently operational. Contract amendments will be completed in March 200 1 and the program will be fully implemented by April 1 , 200 1. The total project is to be fimded by CPA funds, with an annual per capita cost of $798. 13 County of San Diego TRUANCY SUPPRESSION PROJECT (TSP) Program # Served Amount Existing Program $1,034,000 Total Project Cost 0 Increases level of service 300 $750,000 CPA Funds 0 Increases number served cost Expands existing proven program 63 $384,000 TSP is a partnership between Juvenile Court, the Probation Department, and various school districts targeting 601 wards with truancy issues, with the goal of reducing truancy and delinquency. The existing Truancy Intervention Program will be augmented to add the Suppression component. The augmentation will add Correctional Deputy Probation Officers to provide community supervision, transportation, and crisis intervention services as needed. In addition, Deputy Probation Officers will be added to provide primary intervention, case management and supervision services for these youth and families experiencing family management and school difficulties. Research shows that school absenteeism is a growing problem in the United States. Truancy is related to delinquent and criminal activity, and “seventy-five percent of all juvenile offenders have been truant from school” (Fritz, John C., “Johnson County District Attorney’s Office, Important Information About Truancy Laws,” 1999). The Truancy Intervention Program (TIP), established in 1988 and implemented in seven school districts in San Diego County, is effective in reducing truancy and delinquency: 98.2% of referrals to TIP received no new 601 petitions after TIP/SARB intervention 99.3% of minors referred to TIP received no new 602 petitions after TIPBARB intervention The Truancy Suppression Program (TSP) is an augmentation to the TIP program and will complete the existing continuum of services for 601 wards with truancy issues. TIP currently provides early inter- vention on school campuses to assist habitually truant youth and their families. The District Attor- ney’s Office provides mediation through the BRIE Families program. TSP will provide better ser- vice to the Courts through direct accountability to Truancy Court schools. TSP Officers will enhance the continuum of care by providing intervention, treatment, supervision, and suppression to wards and their families. Contracts, Memorandums of Agreement and Memorandums of Understanding will be established with partner agencies. Information sharing and data collection will be automated through existing systems (REJIS, School Information System (SIS), and JCMS). Partner staff will share school release forms and case manage- ment information at multi-disciplinary team meetings. Semi-annual reports will be provided to the Board of Supervisors and annual reports will be submitted to the Board of Corrections. The Juvenile Justice Commission, and the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council will receive routine updates. The existing TIP program will be augmented by adding 1 1 staff positions. Probation staff will be hired commencing in June; program expansion will be hlly implemented by July 200 1. Total project annual per capita costs are $3,780. CPA annual per capita costs are $2,500. 14 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan CHAPTER I: Background Summary of San Diego County’s Juvenile Justice System S an Diego County encompasses 4,260 square miles, with 18 cities and 2.8 million people, making the region comparable to the state of Connecticut in size and population. The County is the second largest of 58 California counties. San Diego is the sixth largest city in the nation. There are 43 school districts in the County, and the population is diverse - 57.5% white, 26.5% Latino, 9.8% Asiaflacific Islander, 5.6% African American, and 0.6% Native American. One-quarter of the population is under 18 years old, and the household median income is $4 1,443. During the last decade, San Diego County experienced an upswing in juvenile crime and vio- lence. Youth used and sold drugs. Youth armed themselves with weapons. Juvenile homicide rates rose. Dire predictions of a future filled with ‘super predators’ frightened the public. Curfews were reinstated. ‘Zero Tolerance’ initiatives were enacted for drugs and weapons on school campuses, and school police forces came into existence. Legislative and political agendas within the state and county responded to the community’s cry for tighter controls on juveniles in the interest of public safety. This was a shift from a child welfare focus to one of juvenile accountability. In early 1996, S.an Diego County Board of Supervisor Ron Roberts met with Shay Bilchik, Administrator, United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of San Diego County to deal with juvenile delinquency. San Diego County was looking for new approaches, cutting edge strate- gies and guidance from experts across the country to continue and expand our efforts to promote positive development of youth and prevent juvenile delinquency. San Diego County was ready and able to implement OJJDP’s new Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. As a result, San Diego became one of the first three sites in the nation to be provided with technical assistance from OJJDP for the implementation of this strategy. In May 1996, consultants hired by OJJDP from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) and Developmental Research and Programs (DRP) conducted a site visit to San Diego to begin the planning and training processes for the Comprehensive Strategy. During this visit, NCCD and DRP provided training that outlined the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Strategy for more than 50 county and community policymakers and key leaders. Following key leader buy-in, in December 1996, the consultants conducted a three-day training for more than 200 line staff and community members. Individuals, agencies and organizations made a full commitment to join and participate in the San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy Team, I- 1 County of San Diego both as initial planners and long-term members. Two task forces (Graduated Sanctions and Prevention) were created to continue the planning process for the Comprehensive Strategy over the next year. In April 1997, the Comprehensive Strategy Planners altered their original struc- ture and combined the two task forces into one. San Diego believed it was essential to have a united team, working side by side with clear communication, as the planning process moved forward. San Diego’s Comprehensive Strategy Team (CST) formed six work groups to deal specifically with issues of resource development, coordination, community engagement, advo- cacy, key leader buy-in and information sharing. The technical assistance from the NCCD and DRP culminated in a two-day workshop in October 1997, with more than 150 participants devel- oping 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, San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy for Youth, Family and Commu- nity was published and widely distributed to stakeholders and others throughout the region. During the same year, a Coordinator for the Comprehensive Strategy was hired to assist the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council with implementation efforts. During a site visit in January 1999, Attorney General Janet Reno formally accepted San Diego County’s plan for implement- ing the Comprehensive Strategy. She praised the plan and called the report a ‘road map’ for other areas to follow in organizing and coordinating their efforts to solve such problems among young people as drug use and crime. Shared Vision San Diego’s Comprehensive Strategy Plan is the framework upon which the Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan was built. This plan was developed with input from diverse sources that contributed experience, professional expertise, national, state and local data and sta- tistics, and many creative ideas and methodologies. Researchers, front-line staff, executives and community representatives worked together to craft a course of action. The strategic plan pro- poses an integrated systems approach with an expectation of sustained and measured results. This plan was based upon the shared vision that all of San Diego’s youth will develop into Car- ing, Literate, Educated And Responsible (CLEAR) community members. To achieve this vision, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council must continue to represent a regional, coordmated effort and stay focused as it continues to work to strengthen communities and families to develop healthy, responsible youth through prevention, intervention and appropriate graduated sanctions. Mission The mission of the Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan is to: Strengthen families and communities by developing youth who are Caring, Literate, Educated And Responsible (CLEAR); Support core institutions, such as schools, health care providers, government agencies, faith communities and community-based organizations in their role in developing youth; Emphasize prevention as the most cost-effective approach to the reduction of delinquency; 1-2 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan 0 Provide immediate and effective intervention with youth at their first sign of problems or 0 Institute a broad range of care and rehabilitative services; Reduce duplication of effort and fill service gaps; and Help communities to define and establish effective guiding principles for collaboration. inappropriate behavior; San Diego’s Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP) will serve as a blue- print for community action and collaboration. It provides a broad spectrum of recommendations that will mobilize youth, adults, agencies and organizations to strengthen youth, families and communities. The strategy enables everyone to share the vision. No single individual, organi- zation or agency can address all of the factors contributing to juvenile delinquency and violence. Working together, local leaders, public and private groups, schools, community members and youth can bring about systems change and strategies that work. Borrowing from OJJDP, the San Diego County Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan begins with the same five general principles: Guiding Principle # 1 - We must strengthen families. We must recognize that the family has primary responsibility to instill values and provide guidance and support to children. When necessary, we must strengthen the family in support of these responsibilities. Where there is no functional family unit, we must establish a family surrogate and assist that entity to guide and nurture the child. Guiding Principle # 2 - We must support core social institutions -- schools, faith community and community organizations -- in their roles of developing capable, mature and responsible youth. Guiding Principle # 3 - We must promote prevention as the most cost-effective and humane approach to reducing juvenile delinquency. Communities must take the lead in designing and building cohesive prevention approaches that address known risk factors and target other youth at risk of delinquency. Guiding Principle # 4 - We must intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs to successfully prevent offenders from committing progressively more serious and violent crimes and becoming chronic offenders. Guiding Principle # 5 - We must identify and sanction the small group of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Purpose and Membership of San Diego’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) The purpose of the JJCC, as specified in W&I Code 749.22, is to: ‘ . . .develop a comprehensive, multi-agency plan that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of responses for the prevention, intervention, supervi- sion, treatment, and incarceration of male and female juvenile offenders, including strategies I- 3 County of San Diego to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths who are persons described in Section 602.’ In November 1996, the Board of Supervisors appointed twenty-two members to the JJCC, which allowed for community representation beyond the minimum of eleven mandatory appointments specified in SB 1760. The Board of Supervisors believed that additional representation from community-based organizations serving youth was critical to ensuring a well-balanced, collabo- rative and integrated approach to addressing community needs and providing services along the entire juvenile justice continuum. On February 23, 1999, the Board of Supervisors expanded the JJCC to 26 members, to include a youth represedative and a member of the business community. On December 12,2000, the Board of Supervisors again expanded the membership to include representatives from education, the faith comnunity, the San Diego Workforce Partnership, and an organization representing the non-profit service providers. The following is a list of the current active members of the Coordinating Council. San Diego’s Juvenile Jusfice Coordinating Council Alan M. Crogan, Chief Probation Officer (Chair) James Milliken, Presiding Judge David Bejarano, Chief Bill Kolender Joan Stein Marc Kuritz Gregory Cox Henry Coker Vaughn Jeffery AI Medina Alfredo Aguirre Yvonne Campbell Chuck Lee Jack Campana Augustine Gallego Lisa Hamann Elinor Smith Roseann Myers Leslie Hine-Rabichow, Executive Director Kitty Burbridge, Executive Director Michael Carr, Executive Director Shirley Cole, Executive Director Walter Philips, Executive Director Kathryn Lembo, Executive Director Sandra McBrayer, Executive Director Sophonya Simpson, Executive Director Frank Goldsmith Julia Rocha Larry Fitch, Executive Director Plez Felix Azim Khamisa John Hughes Probation Department Superior Court, Juvenile Division San Diego Police Department Sheriffs Department District Attorney’s Office Office of Supervisor Ron Roberts Board of Supervisors Public Defender‘s Office Chief Administrative Office HHSA, Alcohol & Drug Services HHSA, Mental Health Services HHSA, Children’s Service Bureau County Office of Education San Diego Unified School District San Diego Community College District Ninth District PTA Juvenile Justice Commission Commission on Children, Youth & Families San Diego Association of Non-Profits Escondido Youth Encounter Social Advocates for Youth (SAY-SD) Lifeline Community Services San Diego Youth & Community Services South Bay Community Services Children’s Initiative Youth Congress Business Representative Business Representative San Diego Workforce Partnership Community-At-Large Member Community-At-Large Member Faith Community 1-4 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan On-going support has been provided to the JJCC by: David Simmons, Comprehensive Strategy Coordinator, Children’s Initiative Susan Pennell, Director Criminal Justice Research Division, SANDAG Sara Vickers, Director, County of San Diego Probation Department Lesley McClelland, Director, County of San Diego Probation Department Jane Peterson, Analyst, County of San Diego Probation Department Anita Paredes, Consultant, Community Connection Resource Center The JJCC is involved both in continually refining the juvenile justice plan, and in selecting and designing best practice proven programs to fill the identified gaps of the CMJJP for San Diego’s continuum of juvenile justice services. Meetings of the JJCC have been held at least once a month since the first meeting on December 18, 1996 and are regularly scheduled for the second Wednesday of every month. Meetings of the San Diego Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, 2000 January 12,2000 February 9,2000 March 8,2000 April 12,2000 May 10,2000 June 14,2000 July 12,2000 August 9,2000 September 20,2000 October 11 , 2000 November 1 , 2000 November 15,2000 December 13,2000 JJCC’s Role in Comprehensive and Collaborative Planning Efforts in San Diego The JJCC took an active role in overseeing the development and implementation of the 1997 Local Action Plan (LAP) and the updated 1999 LAP. The JJCC continues to provide oversight for Challenge Grants I and 11, and the proposed Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan. The Council also provided oversight of the Comprehensive Strategy planning process that was initiated in 1996 and has monitored implementation activities since 1998. In addition, the JJCC has assumed responsibility for the guidance and oversight of the Comprehensive Youth Services Act, TANF programs, as well as the Juvenile Accountability and Incentive Block Grant that allows for an automated information sharing system between the Courts, schools, probation, law enforcement, and community-based organizations. I- 5 County of San Diego Description of San Diego’s Existing Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime Updating San Diego County’s Local Action Plan (LAP) and Comprehensive Strategy to Create the Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP) T his Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan represents the second time that San Diego has revisited its local juvenile justice plan since the first LAP in 1997 that accom- panied the Challenge Grant I application. In December 1998, the JJCC reviewed system gaps from the 1997 LAP, the 1998 Comprehensive Strategy and progress to date. Gender-spe- cific programming for girls remained a critical gap, and the updated LAP accompanied the Challenge Grant I1 application for the WINGS (Working to Insure & Nurture Girls’ Success) Program. The Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (CPA 2000) again called for an in-depth evaluation of San Diego’s juvenile justice system to identify and prioritize neighborhoods, schools and communities facing significant juvenile crime and public safety risks, and to develop local juvenile justice strategies that provide a continuum of responses to juvenile crime. San Diego’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council has reviewed and prioritized the most recent data available regarding risk factors, needs and issues in the present system, which would provide for a more comprehensive continuum of responses to juvenile crime. The local juvenile justice strategy to meet these needs is detailed in Chapter 111. Major Accomplishments Since 1997 Assessment The San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup is a one-page research-based screening assess- ment instrument being used across systems (probation, law enforcement, schools, service providers, etc.) in San Diego County since May 1998. With the participation of over 20 community and county agencies, San Diego undertook the development of a universal assessment tool in October 1997. The objective was to design an assessment tool that would prevent a child’s unnecessary entry into the juvenile justice system using early assessment. The Community Assessment Teams piloted the Checkup and its use has been expanded throughout the juvenile justice system. The Checkup provides a uniform screening and referral process throughout the region and enhances quality control in case management. It uses the concept of a blood pressure check to allow families to take steps to avoid harm to children. A reading outside the normal range alerts an individual to existing conditions that indicate the likelihood of health problems. In many instances, that information is enough to motivate change in an individual. I- 6 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan An automated copyrighted version of the Checkup that scores and graphically portrays risk and resiliency was released for use in 1999. A consulting firm is currently collecting data and performing scale validity tests. A copy of the Checkup is included in the Appendix. Gender-Responsive Services OCJP Award. In 1998 the Office of Criminal Justice Planning awarded $100,000 to the YMCA, Youth and Family Services, to provide services to adolescent girls participating in day treatment centers managed by the Probation Department. Services include home visits; group counseling focused on gender specific issues; independent living skills; academic enrichment; employment preparation; family counseling; and peer mentoring. Girls Working Group. In 1999, the County Board of Supervisors designated the Girls Working Group and identified members to formulate a county policy and related recommendations for gender-based services. As an advisory body to the Board, the Girls Working Group assists with guidance and monitoring of gender-responsive programs to be planned and implemented within the guidelines of Board Policy entitled ‘Gender-Responsive Services for San Diego County’s Juvenile Female Offenders and At-Risk Youth Women & Girls. Challenge Grant 11. In 1999, the Probation Department received $4.6 million for three years (Challenge Grant 11) to provide program services for over 1,500 girls (ages 12 to 17) and their families. The WINGS (Working to Insure & Nurture Girls’ Success) Program includes community-based and home visiting services by a multi-disciplinary team of workers in various regions of the county. Board of Supervisors Policy A-132. Also in 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted Board Policy A- 132, ‘ Gender Responsive Services for San Diego County ’s Juvenile Female Offenders and At-Risk Young Women and Girls, ’ with the ultimate goal of providing gender- responsive services for at-risk young women and girls to assist them to be successfbl in life and prevent them from penetrating into the justice system. Out-of-Home Placement Strategy The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the County of San Diego Probation Depart- ment, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Juvenile Court, has provided leadership and continued support to 1) reduce residential facility placements, 2) achieve net County cost savings, and 3) create new or expand local placement programs. From March 1995 to June 2000, residential facility placements declined by 52% (from 428 to 205). Local Juvenile Placement Trust Fund savings amount to $3.1 million from this out-of-home placement strategy in FY 1999-00. The County of San Diego Probation Department has implemented many juvenile programs since the inception of the Local Juvenile Placement Trust Fund through the reinvestment of dollars saved on the reduction of out-of-home placements. I- 7 County of San Diego Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment ‘Treatment on Demand.’ The County’s HHSNAlcohol and Drug Services manages and implements an array of services for adolescent substance abusers at all points of the continuum. In addition to an existing allocation of $1.5 million, funding for adolescent alcoholldrug treatment services was increased by over $1.8 million annually by the Board of Supervisors in 1997. This enabled the number of youth served annually to be increased from 600 to 3,000, and reduced the wait time for services from 12 weeks to 2 weeks or less. Five additional Teen Recovery Centers were established, and residential capacity for adolescents was expanded, including 20 new detoxification beds. The array of services includes alcoholldrug treatment and intervention services, in- patienuoutpatient treatment, detoxification beds, and residential placement services. Funding sources include a federal Substance Abuse Prevention Treatment Block Grant, state and county general fbnds administered by the Health & Human Services Agency. In September 2000, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and OJJDP awarded the Lemon Grove Project (as lead applicant) $100,000 for a one-year period to establish a Drug- Free Communities Support Program. Funding is renewable for a two-year period. This pro- gram will allow community coalitions to work collaboratively to design substance abuse reduction initiatives; implement plans to reduce substance abuse among youth; assess the effectiveness of substance abuse reduction efforts; and provide information about best practices programs that may be replicated in other communities. Juvenile Dependency Court Recovery Project In May 1998, a partnership between the County and Superior Court initiated court reform in the processing of juvenile dependency cases, primarily to reduce the time children spend in temporary foster care awaiting permanent placement. Additionally, a Dependency Drug Court was established to reduce the time for parents of dependent children to access alcohol and drug treatment. The project is expected to reduce the time children spend in temporary foster care from 34 months to 18 months. Cost savings will be reinvested in services for children. Preliminary statistics indicate that 67% of parents who have children that are dependent wards of the court comply with substance abuse recovery plans. An estimated 1,500-2,000 parents in the Dependency system will receive case management services annually. Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court The County of San Diego received a $375,000 grant from the California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs to fund services from September 1998 through June 2001. Juvenile Drug Court is a 12-month program for juveniles who have repeatedly been non- compliant in drug treatment and who need increased monitoring and community supervision by the Court. The goal is to eliminate dependence/addiction by youth and achieve sobriety through day treatment. Program elements include frequent drug court appearances; outpa- tient services; intensive supervision; frequent drug testing; peer group support; rewards and I- 8 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan praise for compliant behavior; and immediate consequences/sanctions for non-compliant behavior. County general funds, state revenue (TANF), and a federal grant provide resources to man- age cases and conduct an evaluation. Since September 1998,90% of youth completing the program have not used substances or committed a new crime in the twelve-month period following program graduation. Work Force Development San Diego’s Local Action Plan that was submitted to the Board of Corrections in March 1997 identified youth vocational and job skills training as one of the gaps in the continuum of services. Since that time, significant progress has been made. San Diego Youth@Work provides job placement, job readiness training, occupational skills training, dropout prevention, community involvement and comprehensive support to youth in central San Diego’s Enterprise Zone. In 1999, more than 400 youth were served by San Diego Youth@Work. Learn and Earn is an employer-paid student internship program for disadvantaged youth sponsored by the San Diego Workforce Partnership (SDWP), Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, BIOCOWSan Diego, San Diego City Schools, and several community-based organizations. In 1999, more than 600 youth were served by Learn and Earn. Year-Long Youth Programs focus on career exploration, academic performance and internship experience, integrating the School-to-Career framework and connecting to post-secondary education. Funded by the San Diego Workforce Partnership through Department of Labor funds, in-school youth programs focus on dropout prevention andor completion of a major level of education. Out-of-school youth programs are required to assist return to school and receipt of a diploma, obtaining a GED, or entering unsubsidized employment, apprenticeship, or the military. In 1999, over 1 , 100 youth were served. School to Career opportunities are available to students throughout San Diego County. National research indicates that students participating in School-to-Career programs achieve the most important measure of success: Participating students are more likely than their peers to (1) attend college; (2) remain in college and earn a degree or other certification of post-secondary training; (3) be working; and (4) have a higher income. Prevention After School Programs. $1.2 million in FY 97-98, $1.5 million in FY 98-99, and $1.9 million in FY 99-00 has been financed through the San Diego County Children’s Trust Fund established by the Board of Supervisors, who authorized the use of $4 million from health and mental health realignment hds for after school programs. The San Diego County Critical Hours Program has served over 25,000 middle school youth through 38 programs at 60 sites throughout the county and involved collaboration with 250 partners. The San Diego I- 9 County of San Diego Regional Consortium has been awarded $44 million by the California Department of Education to fund After School Learning & Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Programs from FY 99-03. Over 200 elementary and middle schools in I8 school districts provide services throughout the county. This regional program involves over 150 collaborative partners. Non-weighted raw numbers of juvenile crimes in the Critical Hours program areas and juvenile suicide in San Diego County have decreased since 1996, the program baseline year. Community Challenge Grants. The California Department of Health Services awarded $1.3 million to nine service providers throughout the county to develop and implement prevention programs targeting teen pregnancy and reducing the number of absentee fathers. Programs were hnded from July 1999 to June 2000, emphasizing communities with greatest need. Programs included sexual abstinence, mentoring, life skills training, communication and decision making, and other interventions to reduce the number of unwed and teen pregnancies, reduce single-parent families, and promote responsible parenting. Community Assessment Teams are the prevention component of SB 1760 Challenge Grant I, designed to provide strength-based family assessments, intervention and counseling for at- risk juveniles and their families. SB 1050 provided an additional $2 million for direct ser- vices and expanding the program to three additional sites, for a total of five. (See ‘At Risk Early Intervention Youth Program’ below.) Community Policing Efforts. The San Diego Police and Sheriffs Departments are national leaders in community policing efforts. This initiative, known nationally as Community- Oriented Policing Strategies (COPS), allows communities to hire, re-deploy and retain law enforcement personnel. Siting officers in neighborhoods increases citizen confidence in law enforcement and enhances community safety. Truancy Intervention Project. Eight school districts contract with the Probation Department for truancy intervention officers at elementary, middle and high school campuses. These probation officers provide primary intervention services to youth and their families experi- encing family management and school problems. They also sit on School Attendance Review Team and School Attendance Review Board and train school personnel about the juvenile justice system. Intervention At-Risk Youth Early Intervention Program SB 1050, sponsored by Senator Dede Alpert, built upon the community assessment center prevention component of the Breaking Cycles Project. The County of San Diego Probation Department contracts with local community- based organizations to provide direct prevention and intervention services. Assessment and in-home crisis support services are provided to nearly 3,200 youth and their families annu- ally. The majority of clients successfully complete case management plans and are either employed or in school at program exit. To date, 99% have not entered the justice system six months after receiving services. The CATS have become a community resource for law enforcement and schools, reducing their expenditures for community follow-up. I- 10 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Challenge Grant 11, Working to Insure & Nurture Girls’ Success (WINGS) is a countywide girls-only program operated by community-based organizations. The goal of WINGS is to reduce the number of females from entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system by supporting and empowering girls and their families to access and receive community re- sources. The program is based on a family-centered, home visiting platform, for first or second-time juvenile female offenders referred to probation and appropriate for diversion, informal, or at-home formal probation. The Checkup is used to screen eligible participants, and is re-administered to evaluate progress toward reducing risk factors. A multi- disciplinary team is comprised of a team leader, home visitors, youth representatives, family advocates, and specialists in sexual/physical abuse, substance abuse, and parent education. Suppression Gang Suppression Unit. This unit provides the highest level of community control for identi- fied gang members. Armed probation officers conduct proactive enforcement of probation conditions, conducting searches, drug testing, surveillance and liaison with other law en- forcement agencies. One probation officer is assigned to the South Bay Gang Violence Suppression project, a multidisciplinary effort aimed at preventing youth from becoming involved in gangs and intensively supervising identified gang members. Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement (JUDGE). This unit provides a high level of community enforcement for the highest risk gang and drug involved probationers. A task force of armed probation officers alongside local law enforcement officers, the district attorney, and federal task forces, this unit has been very successful in removing gang- involved probationers from the community using vertical prosecution. JUDGE unit officers also participate on several regional federal task forces targeting serious, violent felons and auto thefts. Suppression-Supervision CHOICE Program. SDSU Foundation and the Probation Department implemented a five-year replication of Baltimore’s CHOICE program, offering intensive juvenile supervision and monitoring. Funded at $2 million a year by Probation in 1998, legislation provided an additional $500,000 to expand the program. Increased Supervision to Formerly ‘Banked’ Probation Cases. Until 1997, up to 40% of Probation’s total monthly juvenile caseload (3,500 to 4,000) were ‘banked,’with little or no supervision, due to high volume and severe funding limitations. Since February 1997, all at- home juvenile probationers receive Level 1 supervision for the first ninety days of supervision, in small caseloads with higher rates of contact. The increase of Probation Officers assigned to Juvenile Field Services due to the 1997 re- engineering effort of the Probation Department, as well as intensive supervision and moni- toring provided by the CHOICE Program, has significantly increased probation supervision and continuity. 1-1 1 County of San Diego School-to-Career-Next Step. Monitored by the Probation Department, Occupational Training Services (OTS), a private nonprofit corporation, provides vocational assessment, job prepa- ration, job placement and on-the-job mentoring to youth and young adults, ages 17 to 24, in the criminal justice system. The goals of the Next Step Program are 1) self-sufficiency and 2) community and victim restoration through the payment of fines, fees and restitution. SB 1095-Academy Program. San Diego County Office of Education, in coHaboration with the Probation Department, provides educational and vocational services to 1) high-risk youth age 15-1/2 and under matching the 8% profile for repeat offenders, and 2) youth transitioning out of ranches, camps and juvenile hall. The goal of these programs is public safety, reduction of juvenile crime, and youthhl self-efficacy. Repeat Offender Prevention Program (formerly Project 8%). San Diego County provides wraparound services to youth at risk of becoming chronic, serious, and violent offenders. This is a collaborative project between the Probation Department as the lead agency, HHSA, and community-based agencies. A multi-disciplinary team of a probation officer, social worker, psychologist, and substance abuse counselor provides integrated services to families of at-risk youth to minimize delinquency and costs of processing youth through the juvenile justice system. The team works in a family resource center in collaboration with the County Office of Education and the Union of Pan-Asian Communities (UPAC). It also provides prevention services to siblings and family preservation services to their families. Risk assessment scores are declining and resiliency scores are increasing at 6 and 12-month follow-up, most notably in the areas of education and criminality, the highest area of risk or these youth. Suppression-Treatment Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court. The Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court is a continuum of services for wards of the court with substance abuse issues. It is a partnership between the Juvenile Court, the Alternate Public Defender, District Attorney, Treatment Providers, Police Departments, the Sheriffs Department and Probation. The goals of the Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court are to: 0 increase the public’s confidence in the juvenile justice system; 0 hold wards accountable for a clean, sober and legal lifestyle; and 0 strengthen the family’s ability to support this lifestyle. Interventions may include required attendance in substance abuse treatment programs oper- ated by subcontractors of the County’s Alcohol & Drug Services, located at many sites throughout the County. Adolescent substance abuse treatment is an integral and necessary component of the Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court program. ‘Treatment on demand’ is discussed earlier in this section. Aftercare. Intensive supervision, home visiting, and mentoring is provided for wards returning home from group home placement or custody programs, including Youth Correctional Center I- 12 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (YCC), Girls Rehabilitation Facility (GRF), and the substance abuse program at Juvenile Ranch Facilities (JRF). Reflections Day Treatment. Probation secured a $750,000 three-year grant from the OMice of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) in 1996 to enhance and expand the capacity of Reflections, a multi-agency, family-focused, day treatment alternative to residential placement. The program offers school, counseling, recreational activities, mental health and wraparound services for the entire family in two locations, Central San Diego and North County. Juvenile Assessment and Mentoring Program (JAM) provides assessment, drug testing and treatment for low-risk substance abusing wards. Building Effective Solutions Together (B.E.S.T.) Mental health services, wraparound and in- home family support services are provided to families to maintain probation youth in the community. The program serves HHSA families and approximately 35 probation families where the ward or dependent child has serious mental health diagnoses. Incapacitation Challenge Grant I, Breaking Cycles Graduated Sanctions Program On any given day approximately 500 high-risk youth, ages 13-18, are committed by the Juvenile Court to this program. This expanded and enhanced program, based on a pilot, builds on the treatment team approach using a multi-disciplinary assessment to evaluate program progress. With a probation officer as case manager, Breaking Cycles provides a seamless continuum of ser- vices and graduated sanctions, and the ability to move wards up or down the continuum without returning to Juvenile Court, providing there is no new arrest. Each service plan is tailored to the youth, allowing for a wide array of service permutations. Placement decisions include all graduated sanctions components, from own home supervision through incarceration. The Youth Correctional Center (YCC) opened in 1997 and serves 125 high-risk boys, ages 16-18 that formerly would have been ordered to out-of-county placement. YCC is finded by savings diverted from out-of-county placements, and through a contract to house federal prisoners awaiting deportation. Increased Capacity of Meadow Lark Juvenile Hall. Construction of an additional 30-bed unit at Juvenile Hall for the incarceration of serious, violent and chronic offenders was completed in March 2000. This Board of Corrections rated capacity increased from 335 to 365. South County Juvenile Detention Facility. The Probation Department was successfil in obtaining a $36.5 million grant from the Board of Corrections to build a 288-bed juvenile detention facility located in South County. Groundbreaking is scheduled for January 2002, with completion of constfiction and occupancy in early 2004. Use of this facility will reduce overcrowding at the Meadow Lark Juvenile Hall. 1-13 County of San Diego Deferred Maintenance at Juvenile Ranch Facility and Youth Correctional Center. The Probation Department was also successful in obtaining $2 million in grant funds from the Board of Corrections for performing deferred maintenance at these juvenile facilities. Reno- vations will improve the safety and security of the minors in custody, as well as extend the life of these facilities for at least ten more years. Present Continuum of County-Based Responses to Juvenile Crime San Diego has made significant progress in recent years to create a seamless continuum of responses to juvenile crime at all points of the system. Numerous sources of information, including the expertise of the JJCC, were used to compile data on existing resources. There are literally hundreds of resources in San Diego County representing the types of services needed by at-risk youth, juvenile offenders, and their families throughout the entire continuum of preven- tion and graduated sanctions. Some of these resources serve the entire region while others serve only specific geographic, ethnic or cultural communities. Existing resources that target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families were gathered from these sources: Law enforcement Probation Education Mental health Health Social services Drug and alcohol treatment services Youth services, including employment San Diego County has a continuum of responses to juvenile crime that maximizes collaboration and the use of integrated resources. The CMJJP improves and marshals resources to reduce juvenile crime in identified areas and in the greater community. These responses include pre- vention, intervention, supervision, treatment, suppression, incapacitation and aftercare. Within each of these domains, programs and services are designed to enhance protective factors and reduce risk factors. Prevention. Programs and resources that address community, family and individual risk factors and enhance protective factors that will minimize the risk of delinquent behavior and entry into the juvenile justice system. Intervention. Programs and resources that provide immediate, swift responses within the community for youth exhibiting delinquent behavior before they enter the criminal justice system. Supervision. Programs and resources that provide juvenile offender supervision, accountability for compliance with court ordered conditions of probation, and assistance to lawful self-suffkiency. Community-based, family-focused intervention and treatment I- 14 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan services, specifically substance abuse and mental health treatment services, supplement probation supervision. Treatment. Treatment programs and resources including Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court, community-based treatment, structured Day Treatment Centers, and residential group home placement for 601 and 602 wards of the Court. Suppression. Programs and resources designed to provide intensive community supervi- sion of the highest-risk youth in the community. Programs include Home Supervision, Electronic Surveillance, Gang Suppression Unit, Jurisdictions Unified for Drug/Gang Enforcement (JUDGE) Unit, Regional Gang Task Forces and Warrant Enforcement. Incapacitation. Programs and resources that provide safe and secure detention for juve- nile offenders alleged to have committed a crime or waiting for placement; local correc- tional treatment facilities for boys and girls committed to custody by the Juvenile Court; and the California Youth Authority for the most serious, violent, chronic juvenile offenders. Aftercare. Programs and resources that help to transition youth in custody to living at home in the community. Detailed resource information is provided in the pages that follow. Table 1-1 describes the Existing Continuum of Juvenile Justice Programs. 0 Table 1-2 lists Law Enforcement Juvenile Diversion Programs. Table 1-3 shows a representative sample of additional prevention, intervention and treatment programs. Table 1-4 summarizes the service category of many representative resources for at-risk youth and their families, as listed in the most recent countywide directory of health and human care services. 1-15 CI cw 00 . . ... I I c m s 2 W X L E C m m 0 3 9 ._ .- c 5 e g s 9 e 2 c E e 'f m D n r: J .. k 0 > a W 0 c c c1 m 9 4 m a 9 a 0 I "1 s 'E a a m 0 c;' U 1 2 R L e, a 0 0 d a sB .e g e C Q 9 a t 9 g x 4 U g E e e a .- c1 ii e m 4 .. ~ ~~ Agency City of Carlsbad Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program City of Chula Vista Police Department Juvenile Diversion ProgradRuna way Youth Counseling - Program City of El Cajon Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program City of National City Police Department Youth Diversion Program TABLE 1-2 San Diego County Law Enforcement Juvenile Diversion Programs Services Places first time youth offenders who have committed minor offenses into community work program as alternative to court hearing. Program Coordinator makes appropropriate referral to counseling. Counseling available for arrestec youth and their families. Group counseling sessions for first time offenders/ families. Local social service agencies are used for referrals. Provides counseling services to runaway youth and their families. Walk-ins/school referrals OK. Provides diversion services to First time juvenile offenders. 4ssessment, counseling and *eferral to community social service agencies as needed. Referral from arresting officer. ?rovides short-term and ongoing counseling for 1st time offenders, runaways and youth having difficulty w/family or school. Provides community education on juvenile legal system, presentations pertaining to youth gangs and youth-related topics. Referral from arresting officer Target Group 10-17 yrs. up to 18 yrs . Juvenile delinquent and pre- delinquent youth up to 18 yrs. Juvenile delinquents, youth up to 18 yrs. Juvenile delinquents, youth Geographic Area Servec & Capacity (as available Carlsbad Limited to Chula Vista, Otay Mesa El Cajon About 40 cases per month National City Comments Non-sworn staff serve as Juvenile Justice Coordinator to evaluate all juvenile contacts and select first time offenders & other appropriate candidates for intervention. 4 adult & 2 student peer counselors serve as Juvenile Justice Committee to hear and mete out consequences. Juveniles who do not qualify or wish to participate are referred to Probation. Detective Sgt. evaluates all juvenile contacts for Chula Vista City PD. If best course is intervention, case assigned to in-house counselors from South Bay Community Services. SBCS handles all interventions. If Sgt. does not believe juvenile would benefit, refers to Probation. Police Service Officer evaluates all juvenile contact reports and determines those to refer to CBO. All other cases referred to Probation. Detective Sgt. evaluates all juvenile contacts for National City PD. If best course is intervention, case assigned to in-house counselors from South Bay Community Services. SBCS handles all interventions. If Sgt. does not believe juvenile would benefit, refers to Probation. 1-25 TABLE 1-2 San Diego County Law Enforcement Juvenile Diversion Programs Agency Services City of La months of supervision. Include, Department for first time offenders with 5 Mesa Police Provides diversion counseling face-to-face meetings with parents, juvenile law class and community service City of Handles law enforcement and Oceanside Police Department Youth Services City of Escondido Police Department Juvenile Diversion legal matters (non-civil) pertaining to juveniles, includin investigations, victim assistance gang crime prevention, and cou testimony. Also provides community education and is active with relevant community groups Community Service Officer receives all juvenile contracts and makes an evaluation to handle in an in-house intervention program, or refer tc Probation. Program City of San I Program referral base through Diego Police the SDPD'S Juvenile Division, Department schools, community, walk-in referrals, community-based organizations and the clinical community. San Diego referral services. Conducts laM Department counseling, intervention and Sheriffs investigations provide County Juvenile diversion Youth & enforcement investigations for Family runaway and missing juveniles. Services and investigations involving juvenile suspects. Target Group up to 18 yrs. First time offenders, Juveniles up to 18 yrs. Juvenile delinquents, pre- delinquents up to 18 yrs. Up to 18 yrs. Youth, pre- delinquent, juvenile delinquents up to 18 yrs.Juvenile delinquents pre-delin- quents, school dropouts, youth Geographic Area Served & Capacity (as available La Mesa Oceanside Escondido ltywide hbstations with ctive programs in he following livisions: Jorthern Jortheastern Yestern Central ntervention lfficers at Sheriff ubstations: Lemon Grove Santee, Vista Encinitas imperial Beach ?oway, Ramona 3an Marcos ;allbrook Comments Diversion services conducted by Harmonium, Inc. Investigative Assistant (non- sworn) evaluates all juvenile arrests and handles interventions through Oceanside Juvenile Justice Center. Refers non-eligible and incomplete cases to Probation. All SDPD Officers are responsible for making referals to the diversion programs. Eligible cases are referred to the Restorative Justice Program, Peer Court or local community based organizations with which SDPD has Memorandums of Agreement. Cases are tracked for 2 years, through phone contacts and computer checks, or until juvenile turns 18 yrs old. 12 intervention officers at the Substations 1-26 rr c (II cc 0 3 2 e, 0 a .3 B a 0 h 0 '-4 0 !z 0 0 0 CI Ei 6 0 1 a P e, m a m a 0 - c. Z t Z * 0 z I? e, m a 3 4 * Z 0 0. . 0 0. \ r) I 3 T1 S (II rc 0 8 a e, 0 0 00 rn 0 k .- ...e... a E e E n c 'c c C W 2 3 s s 2 ; s 1 2 E v e, 02 2.50 0 0 0 0 * VI a 7 E ': 0 0 E W 3 : 2 c E a 5 0 T : f i c TABLE 1-4 Summary Profile of Child and Youth Resources Listed in United Way’s Directions 2000, a Directory of Health and Human Care Service Providers in San Diego County (Published October 1999) - The following summary was compiled from service descriptions provided by Health and human care agencies. This edition of Directions does not include listings by service category or population served, as in previous years. Programs that target children and adolescents are identified in Directions with designated icons. These programs were considered in the following service categories. Service Number of Resources Listed Counseling Drop-out Prevention and Tutoring 22 Delinquency Prevention 44 9 Substance Abuse 15 Shelter & Residential Facilities 67 Recreation & Social Development 22 Parenting 9 Mentoring 17 Mental Health 40 Health Care 34 Employmenflraining 18 Total Resources Listed in 297 Directions 1-37 County of San Diego Present Role of Collaborations and/or Partners (Public and Private) in Solutions 11 sing a facilitated planning process, San Diego’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the Comprehensive Strategy Team reached consensus and developed the following work plan to implement San Diego’s Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan. The work plan exemplifies the commitment of San Diego to collaborative solutions. In San Diego County, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, our collaborations and public and private partners in the juvenile justice system advise and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, state and federal legislators, and county agencies on juvenile justice public policy. The ongoing role of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Probation Department, Comprehensive Strategy Team, community collaboratives and partners is to: 1. Ensure that elected officials, policy makers, and community leaders support the Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan. Investigate, evaluate and communicate the efforts and successes of communities to establish laws, policies, and practices that positively impact community norms. Utilize structured decision-making process to allocate resources to fill identified gaps. The following entities have lead responsibilities: Probation Department, in collaboration with Health and Human Services (Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Services, Social Services), County Office of Education, community agency providers, and SANDAG Criminal Justice Research Division: 0 Implement and evaluate the Repeat Offender Prevention Project (ROPP), Challenge Grants I and 11, Breaking Cycles Project and Working to Insure and Nurture Girls Success (WINGS), through June 30,2002. Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Comprehensive Strategy Team: 0 System-wide, balanced approach to funding: Work to develop common definitions of geographic boundarieshervice delivery areas among all the public and non-profit service delivery systems. Juvenile Justice coordinating Council, Partners for Success: Evaluate traditional roles of law enforcement providers and determine more effective training in prevention-focused, community-based, family-oriented partnerships. 1-38 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan 2. Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Agency Directors, Program Managers, Children’s Initiative, Commission on Children, Youth and Families: Utilize resources (like Partners for Success) to provide cross-systems training throughout the region. Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Agency Directors, Program Managers, Children’s Initiative, Commission on Children, Youth and Families: 0 Develop formal, cooperative interagency agreements that clearly state the relationships between agencies, to include descriptions of and numbers of services to be provided, criteria for determining type of youth to be served (or referred), information that can be shared, by and to whom and under what circumstances, etc. County Board of Supervisors, Chief Administrative Officer, Juvenile Justice Coordinating: Council: 0 Develop an automated juvenile case management system that follows youth through the various stages of the continuum. Designate the Chief Probation Officer with the responsibility and provide resources needed to coordinate an interagency, centralized intake-case management-program control process and Management Information System. Fund programs and develop new resources that are relevant to desired outcomes, and continue funding those that demonstrate effectiveness. Juvenile Justice Coordinating; Council, SANDAG Criminal Justice Research Division, local university researchers: Continue development of countywide outcome measures to evaluate effectiveness of system wide and community strategies; develop and implement evaluation tools that match local strategies; develop ways to obtain local community participation (including youth) in program evaluation efforts. Develop and utilize a system wide funding strategy based on outcomes and filling identified gaps. Recommend desired outcomes to policy makers. Adopt assessment instruments and protocols to identify local needs, resources, priorities. Utilize grant resource networks and community collaboratives to seek partners and resources to fill identified gaps. Liaison with HHSA and community-based agencies to fill prevention gaps. Continue to identify and educate the community on ‘what works.’ 1-39 County of San Diego Collaborate with HHSA to fill gaps utilizing the Children’s Investment Trust Fund and Local Juvenile Placement Trust Fund. Pursue resources to fund identified gaps in the Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan and Community-based Punishment Options Plan, with emphasis on family support services, mentoring, substance abuse treatment, outreach, and prevention, and supporting a positive peer influence. Focus on providing more prevention, early intervention (front end) services as savings are realized by using more community-based graduated sanction and aftercare programs. Gain more local control over state and federal funding with less restrictions. Advocate and gain support for the Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan in all areas of the community by engaging the community. 3. Ensure public awareness of the Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan. 0 Gain support from the media, business, grass roots entities, and others to convey the vision in as broad a manner as possible. Develop appropriate and relevant means for sharing information and engaging the community. 0 Secure media and public relations expertise for publicizing prevention and intervention strategies, engaging community involvement, and celebrating school, neighborhood and community achievements. 4. Coordinate Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan efforts with all other initiatives serving youth and families. Involve youth and families in program design and implementation. Develop a common language that values and validates all input. Develop uniform referral protocols. Develop and train community planning teams to conduct community risk assessments, such as the ‘Communities That Care’ model. Develop a comprehensive assessment tool or integrated process that can be used at different points in the continuum, from prevention through aftercare. Establish Memoranda of Understanding for cooperation, information sharing, and use of universal risk and needs assessments between all participants. 1-40 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan 0 Explore the use of regionally or neighborhood-based Resource Centers for ‘one- stop’ service. 0 Explore the use of a resource clearinghouse with a service hotline. 0 Establish a process that assigns responsibility for referral follow-up and follow through. 0 Substance Abuse Treatment Efforts - Adopt countywide common definitions for alcohol and other drug treatment modalities, collect profiles on existing resources and involve offenders in the design. 5. Develop a comprehensive MIS for capturing and analyzing riskheeds assessment data. 0 Liaison with the Public Safety Group, Regional Data Sharing Forum, the Quality of Life Project, and the Pennant Alliance to enhance communication, data sharing, and coordination among police, schools, CBOs, probation, public and private social service agencies. 0 Develop a comprehensive Management Information System (MIS) for capturing and analyzing information collected in risk and needs assessments. 6. Increase the number of community members (individuals, families, schools, businesses, organizations, service providers, etc.) engaged in efforts to mobilize and promote crime- free, healthy communities. 0 Develop protocols for community readiness and mobilization. 0 Expand representation on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee (JJCC) to be more inclusive. Encourage the participation of the Title V Delinquency Prevention Collaboratives and the six Comprehensive Strategy Team Committee Chairs. 0 Develop formal linkages, coordinate and collaborate with all agencies, systems in the region that provide services to at-risk youth (i.e., Child Protection Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Services, etc.) 0 Support the prevention-focused strategies of the Substance Abuse Summit and Methamphetamine Strike Force. 0 Use existing or sponsor forums for youth to participate in all phases of planning and implementing the full continuum of prevention and graduated sanction services. 0 Promote expectations of healthy lifestyles to positively impact community norms using art, the media, a speaker’s bureau and presentations. 0 Develop community-based prevention and intervention programs that target identified at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. 1-4 1 County of San Diego 7. Federal, State, Local Partnerships and Collaborative Efforts Examples: Federal, state, and local funds blended to support Comprehensive Strategy staff positions and related activities. Site visit/ acceptance of San Diego County Comprehensive Strategy Plan by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (January 1999). Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council expanded to 26 members by the Board of Supervisors to provide enhanced support to Comprehensive Strategy implementation (February 1999). Site visit by General Barry McCaffrey (Washington D.C.) and Dr. Juan Ramon de la Fuente (Mexico), June 1999. Site visit by State Advisory Group government officials from Sacramento including representatives from the Senate Office of Research, Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee, Legislative Analyst Office, Senate Republican Policy & Fiscal Commit- tee, Senate Public Safety Committee and legislative aides from Senate offices (July 1999). Workshop presented to the state legislators at the National Conference of State Legislatures (‘Legislative Responses to Youth Violence: A Comprehensive Approach’) in Santa Fe, New Mexico (December 1999) Site visits by staff from the Office of Governor Bush (Austin, Texas) and staff from the American Youth Policy Forum (Washington D.C.) February 2000. Site visit by John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator of OJJDP who delivered Keynote Address at Comprehensive Strategy Celebration of Accomplishments (April 2000) Workshop presented to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (‘Three Outstanding Juvenile Justice Training Programs’) in San Diego, California (May 2000). Workshop presented to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (‘Children and Family First’) in Snowbird, Utah (July 2000). Site visit by Santa Fe County, NM officials (County Manager; County Commissioners; Children’s Court District Judge; Probation Officer) and meetings with local dignitaries for purpose of replicating Comprehensive Strategy approach (September 2000). 1-42 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan , Strengths and Weaknesses of the Present System S omething is working here. Since 1996 and implementation of San Diego’s Local Action Plan to Prevent and Reduce Juvenile Crime, all indicators point to a reduction in juvenile crime. The major accomplishments San Diego has achieved with regard to implementation of a continuum of juvenile justice programs, from prevention through inca- pacitation, are presented earlier in Chapter I. As one could imagine, an effort of this magnitude requires effective coordination and management capabilities. Strength: Strong Local Support and History of Collaboration San Diego County enjoys strong local support, characterized by four years of active involvement of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC). San Diego County is committed to the development of cost-effective, efficient collaborations and partnerships between public and private agencies that reduce juvenile crime. The Board of Supervisors, state and local legislators, Chief Administrative Officer, the Commission on Youth and Fam- ily, the Children’s Initiative, local law enforcement, education, courts, public defender, dis- trict attorney, community-based agencies, and local initiatives all coordinate efforts to pre- vent duplication of services, and provide a seamless ramp of integrated services for children, youth and families. Strong local support results in changes in public policy that fund the identified gaps with proven programs and services, not extraneous, popular knee-jerk responses to the ‘program of the moment.’ Strength: Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime San Diego has a demonstrated ability to identi@ gaps and respond with quality programs in the continuum of juvenile justice services. San Diego County’s strong local support of the Comprehensive Strategy philosophy and local juvenile justice planning efforts of the Juve- nile Justice Coordinating Council have produced quality programs designed, fbnded and implemented to fill the gaps along the continuum. The Board of Supervisors has taken a leading role in endorsing prevention as a primary means to address juvenile delinquency and crime in San Diego. Weakness: Management Infrastructure San Diego enjoys broad support for our comprehensive planning efforts from elected offi- cials and other juvenile justice policymakers, community leaders, public and private program administrators, schools, law enforcement, community programs and groups. However, given the size of the region and the ethnic/cultural diversity of our communities (4,200 square miles, 18 incorporated cities, and many more communities within these cities and unincorporated areas), infrastructure changes can be a monumental task. On-going coordination and linkages are critical for the collaborative efforts now addressing the problems of at-risk and delinquent youth, their families and communities. The Juvenile 1-43 County of San Diego / Justice Coordinating Council provides the forum for cross-systems training of community- based-organization subcontractors, as well as the development of formal interagency agree- ments that clearly state the relationships between agencies. However, in a county the size of San Diego, the issues and priorities that face community-based organizations, youth devel- opment groups, law enforcement agencies, municipalities, county agencies and multiple school districts, vary significantly based upon the needs of their constituents. The formidable task that remains for San Diego is to continue the dialogue and develop a common mission, vision and language to better serve the citizens of our community. Strength: Evaluation San Diego is fortunate to be able to draw upon the resources of a number of organizations with evaluation expertise, including San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division and several universities in the region that provide evaluation services. SANDAG contributes to the national ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) Program. Much is being done in the way of evaluation locally for individual projects and programs. For example, SANDAG has designed and implemented evaluation models for Reflections, Repeat Offender Prevention Project, Breaking Cycles, Community Assessment Teams (CATS) and Working to Nurture and Insure Girls Success (WINGS) programs. SANDAG is contributing to a system-wide evaluation effort that spans the continuum of sanctions within the purview of Probation, from prevention through incapacitation. Strength: Information Technology San Diego’s Regional Juvenile Information System (REJIS) has been praised as the ‘best in the State.’ This relational database system is accessible to Juvenile Court, Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, and other county human service agencies. With the award of a $1.2 million Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block grant, the REJIS system will be upgraded to allow for data integration and information sharing. This grant enables the creation of a single repository of information about at-risk youth that may be shared by Superior Court with various county departments; schools; law enforcement agencies; community-based organizations and the state Central Welfare System. It is expected that in 2001 a new Juvenile Case Management System will provide data for outcome measures. When correlated with population projections, the system will provide: 0 Rate of juvenile arrests; 0 Rate of successful completion of probation; 0 Rate of successful completion of juvenile restitution and community service; and 0 Arrest, incarceration and violation of probation rates of program participants 1-44 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Weakness: Information Sharing Effective coordination and management of our continuum of juvenile justice programs requires constant effort and sufficient resources, which are usually underestimated or not funded adequately. Even with all of the above attributes San Diego County possesses, and the willingness to share information across systems, adequate resources are not in place to effectively manage all of our information sharing needs. San Diego County is in the process of upgrading all of the County’s information systems with the newest technology using PC, Windows-based applications. We know that informa- tion systems require constant maintenance, upgrades and cutting edge enhancements. What many managers overlook is that replacing old systems with new systems poses enormous problems of data retrieval, security, and user re-training. Implementing a well-designed case management system requires the resources (staff) to collect and enter data, to refine and analyze the reports, and to support the hardware and software infrastructure. Currently, data are collected in a multitude of ways, i.e., by court jurisdiction, police juris- diction, municipality, school district, zip code, region and countywide. Our ability to com- pare apples to apples will be enhanced by improved knowledge management and our new information systems. 1-45 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan CHAPTER II: Identification and Prioritization of Neighborhoods, Schools, and Other Areas in the Community Facing Significant Risk from Juvenile Crime T his chapter presents the most current available data related to juvenile arrests, probation referrals and placement, as well as other indicators of at-risk behaviors in San Diego County. Data are presented on a countywide basis and on a community basis, as available. Juvenile Arrests With the exception of the juvenile rate for misdemeanor arrests (up 6% over 5 years), both felony and misdemeanor arrest rates for adults and juveniles declined in each arrest category over five years (1995-1999). TABLE 11-1 Arrest Rates per 1,000 Population, by Level of Offense San Diego Region, 1995,1998 and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Adult Felony 17.7 14.1 12.7 -28% - 10% Misdemeanor 36.5 31.4 30.5 -16% -3 YO 54.2 45.5 43.1 -20% -5 YO I rIZni1e Felony 21.7 20.1 17.1 -2 1 Yo -15% Misdemeanor 36.1 40.7 38.2 ' 6% -6% Status 15.3 13.2 14.5 -5% 10% 73.0 73.9 69.8 -4% -6% I Adult and Juvenile Felony 18.2 14.9 13.2 -27% -1 1% Misdemeanor 36.5 32.5 31.4 -14% -3% TOTAL 56.5 49.0 46.4 -1 8% -5% Source: SANDAG: Crime in the San Diego Region, Mid-Year 2000 II- 1 County of San Diego The total number of juvenile arrests reported by jurisdiction in San Diego was available by law enforcement agency. These data are summarized in the tables below for the years 1997 and 1999. TABLE 11-2 Total Number of Juvenile Felony Arrests Bv Law Enforcement Jurisdiction. 1997 and 1999 Law Enforcement TABLE 11-3 Total Number of Juvenile Misdemeanor and Status Arrests By Law Enforcement Jurisdiction, 1997 and 1999 Law Enforcement % Change 1999 Arrests 1997 Arrests Jurisdiction Carlsbad 12% 1 5,442 13,514 TOTAL -13% 2,506 2,865 San Diego SherifP* 25 yo 8,018 6,008 San Diego Police" 13% 856 749 Oceanside -23% 400 522 National City 3 yo 254 246 La Mesa 27% 1,118 8 14 Escondido -9% 73 7 803 El Cajon 54% 115 53 Coronado 23 yo 1,015 784 Chula Vista -37% 423 670 *San Diego Police covers numerous subregional areas. **The Sheriff covers the unincorporated area, as well as several smaller cities that contract for services. Sources: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG 11-2 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Violent and Property Crime Rates Although FBI crime data are available on a jurisdictional basis for total, violent and property crime rates, detailed crime data specific to juvenile violent and property crimes are generally not available on a jurisdictional or subregional basis. However, given the high crime rates of juve- niles in San Diego, there is some value to examining overall crime rates per 1,000 population that are available by jurisdiction. Caution should be used in examining these data in that some local law enforcement agencies serve large areas covering many communities, such as the San Diego Police Department. Overall annualized FBI Index Crime Rates per 1,000 total population, by jurisdiction, were avail- able for mid-year 2000. From these data, the law enforcement jurisdictions having the top five highest crime rates are shown in the following table: TABLE 11-4 Five Highest Annualized FBI Crime Index Rates Per 1,000 Population By Law Enforcement Jurisdiction Total Crime Rate Property Crime Rate Violent Crime Rate National City (34.2) Chula Vista (5.8) San Diego (39.2) Chula Vista (36.5) . Escondido (6.5) El Cajon (41.1) Del Mar (37.8) Del Mar (7.6) National City (4 1.7) Escondido (41.3) National City (7.8) Lemon Grove (48.9) El Cajon Sources: State Department of Finance; SANDAG numerous subregional areas. Note: San Diego represents the entire geographic area served by the San Diego Police Department, which includes (30.8) El Cajon (5.2) Escondido (37.3) Referrals to Probation by Zip Code For 1999, there were 1 1,940 juvenile referrals to the Probation Department from all sources for both 601 (status) and 602 offenses (Source: REJIS). These data reflect referrals and do not re- flect petition filings or findings. There were only 228 status offenses referred, or less than 2% of the total. All of these data are available by zip code (there are over 100 zip codes covering the San Diego region), and can be examined to derive a picture of community wide referrals of youth to Probation. The fifteen highest zip codes, and the communities these youths reside in, are shown in the table below. It should be noted that, depending on the size of the community, some communities may encompass multiple zip codes. II- 3 County of San Diego TABLE 11-5 Referrals to Probation by Zip Code in I999 Highest 15 Zip Codes Zip Code Total # of Referrals Community 92 105 356 Chula Vista 91910 3 64 El Cajon 92020 416 Golden Hills 92102 487 Chula Vista 91911 526 Encanto 92114 56 1 Southeast SD 92113 650 City Heights 91950 322 Oceanside 92054 328 Spring Valley 91977 353 National City I I I 92154 I Nestor 319 ~~ ~ 92021 248 Escondido 92025 313 El Cajon 92173 243 North Park 92104 244 San Ysidro Source: Probation Statistics 2000 These fifteen zip codes account for more than half of all referrals to Probation in 1999 (5,730 or 53%). If the zip codes are combined for recognized contiguous areas and smaller cities like El Cajon, Chula Vista, Oceanside, and Escondido, the following table results. TABLE 11-6 Referrals to Probation by Zip Code in 1999 Top 5 Grouped by Contiguous Areas and Smaller Cities Zip Codes Total # of Referrals Community 92113-92114 1087 Encanto/Southeast SD I I I 91910-91911 843 Chula Vista 92020-92021 677 El Caion 92105 650 City Heights 92154-92173 563 Nestor, San Ysidro Source: Probation Statistics 2000 11-4 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Gang Membership Estimated gang membership has decreased significantly (22%) since 1996 when the total gang membership was estimated at 9,630. TABLE 11-7 Vista Source: San Diego Gang Suppression Unit-2000 7,5 18 40 29 7,449 TOTAL 148 0 0 148 Community Risk Factors The ‘Communities That Care’ assessment includes several community risk factors that research indicates are associated with the overall quality of life. Among these are homicide rates, firearm-related death and injury rates, drug-related death rates per 100,000 residents, school drop-out rates (one year rate) for grades 9-12, and teen pregnancy rates-births per 1000 adolescents ages 15- 17. Table 11-8 summarizes these community risk factors and aggregate crime data, as well as selected juvenile crime indicators, to identify the communities at risk in San Diego County II- 5 1 T Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan TABLE 11-9 Top 5 School Drol School District Mountain Empire Unified San Diego City Unified Grossmont Union Sweetwater Union Vista Unified County Total Out Rates, b.4 4-year derived rate (9-12) 17.9 14.3 10.1 9.7 9.9 9.4 11.1 District 1 year rate (9-12) 4.5 3.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.8 State Total L Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit TABLE 11-1 0 San Diego County Schools With Lowest Academic Performance Index, 2000* School San Diego Unified 445 Edward A. McDowell San Ysidro Elementary 436 Willow Elementary San Ysidro Elementary 406 Beyer Elementary School District API 2000 Elementarv Logan Elementary' 461 Jackson Elementary 446 493 San Ysidro Middle 490 Feaser-Edison Charter 485 Martin Luther King Elementary 485 Lincoln Senior High 469 Hoover Senior High *Scores range from 200 to 1,000, with 800 the statewide Source: California Department of Education, article in S ~~~ ~~ ~ San Diego Unified San Diego Unified San Diego Unified San Diego Unified San Diego Unified Chula Vista Elementary San Ysidro Elementary goal for all schools Ln Diego Union-Tribune, 10/5/00 11- 7 County of San Diego Review of Strategic Plans, Reports and Data The JJCC Technical Group reviewed dozens of strategic plans, reports, and data from public entities, community collaboratives and other sources in the process of developing the CMJJP. These materials were reviewed to provide additional information to the JJCC about risk factors, needs and issues in the present system and support final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. It should be noted that some of these documents contained data only, and others were simply informational. Strategic plans, task force reports, and other relevant reports that identified community risks and needs are summarized in the following section. The reviewed documents include: 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and Tables AB 1741 Youth Pilot Program Interim Evaluation Report (August 2000) Academic Performance Index (SD Union Tribune, 10/5/00) Building Healthier Futures Data Supplement, July 1996 California Healthy Kids Survey: San Diego Unified School District, Key Findings (Spring California Office of Education: San Diego County Drop Out Rates Grades 9-12 (1998-1999) Child Care and Development Planning Council Children’s Initiative, Zero-to-Six Task Force: “Parent Voices” (June 1997) County of San Diego Board of Supervisors, Agenda Item: Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use by Youth (March 2000) County of San Diego, Children’s Mental Health Services Provider Resource Manual (February 2000) County of San Diego Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Drug Services: “Moving the Delivery of Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Services into a New Framework for the 21 st Century” 1999) County of San Diego, Public Safety Group Strategic Plan White Paper with HHSA Input County of San Diego, HHSA, AB 1741 Youth Pilot Program Interim Evaluation Report County of San Diego, HHSA, Children’s Services: Monthly FAQs (July 1999 - September 2000) County of San Diego, HHSA, Central Region Strategic Plan (1999-01) County of San Diego, HHSA, East County Community Forum: Telling the East County Story: County of San Diego, HHSA, Strategic Plan/ FY 99-01 County of San Diego, HHSA, Southern Region Participatory Strategic Plan (May, June County of San Diego, HHSA, North Central Region All Day Strategic Planning Retreat - Year II, July 2000 County of San Diego, HHSA: North County Works! A Five Year Strategic Plan for North County Communities (June 1999) County of San Diego District Attorney: VictimNVitness Unit Monthly Contacts/Services (October 1999-May 2000) First Biennial California Healthy Kids Survey, 1998-99 and gth Annual California Student Survey 1999-2000 Gun Safety Pilot Project CA Dept. of Justice, Office of Attorney General, Hate Crime Data 1999 What it means to live, work and play in East County (October 2000) 1999) II- 8 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Health and Human Services Agency Family Preservation and Support Program Plan Health and Human Services Agency Strategic Plan Office of National Drug Control Policy: National Drug Control Strategy (May 1999) Ohio State University, Overview and Findings on Teen Pregnancy Planned Parenthood - general information Regional Task Force on the Homeless: Update on Homelessness throughout San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless: Update on Facilities and Services San Diego Sexual Assault Response Team of San Diego County (SART): Response with a Heart (April Safe Schools Task Force 6/2000 SANDAG: Down For The Set: Describing and Defining Gangs in San Diego (1994 SANDAG: Measuring the San Diego Region’s Livability/2000 State of the Region Report San Diego Children and Families First San Diego County Child and Family Health & Well Being: Report Card (1999 and 2000) San Diego County Child Care and Development Planning Council: Meeting the Child Care San Diego County Children and Families Commission: All 4 Kids Strategic Plan (Calendar San Diego County Office of Education: Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) Reports San Diego County Policy Panel on Youth Access to Alcohol: “Alcohol and Youth” Report and Recommendations (October 1994) San Diego County Strategic Plan AB 1741 San Diego County Substance Abuse Summit V: New Solutions for Healthier Communities, San Diego County Substance Abuse Summit 1996: A Plan for Action: Establishing a San Diego / East County Community Resources San Diego Methamphetamine Statistics San Diego Methamphetamine Strike Force San Diego Police Department Community Crime Prevention San Diego Prevention Coalition Strategic Framework San Diego Safe Kids Coalition, “Childhood Unintentional Injuries in San Diego County: A San Diego Training Guide for Youth Programs 4/99 SANDAG: Crime in the San Diego Region, Mid-year 2000 United Way of San Diego County: “Directions 2000 United Way of San Diego County: Future Scan (May 1996) Violence Prevention Youth Health Care Council of San Diego County: “Solutions for Better Health Care for Youth” (1 999) Youth Suicide Homicide Audit Committee Report (2000) County (August 1999) County (January 2000) 2000) Needs of San Diego County Families (January 2000) year 2000) (1 990-1 999) Prevention File (Summer 2000) Balance Between Public Health and Public Safety Report and Action Plan (July 2000) and Executive Summary II- 9 County of San Diego Summaries of Relevant Strategic Plans, Task Force and Other Agency Reports San Diego County Methamphetamine Strike Force Status Report, October 1999 The San Diego County Board of Supervisors authorized the formation of a multidisciplinary Methamphetamine Strike Force in March 1996. The 70-member Strike Force includes local, state and federal representatives from public health, law enforcement, judiciary, education, treatment, prevention and intervention agencies. This group was charged with researching local methamphetamine problems, develop recommendations and return to the Board with an action plan to implement the recommendations. This report contains a Report Card that displays 10 key measurable indicators (see Attach- ment 7). These indicators include: 1) total methamphetamine deaths; 2) related emergency department mentions; 3) drug treatment admissions; 4) positive methamphetamine tests/adults; 5) positive methamphetamine testdjuveniles; 6) lab clean ups/seizures; 7) number of arrests for methamphetamine sales and possession; 8) availability of metham- phetamine based on street price; 9) hotline calls; 10) media stories. After reviewing data, the Strike Force submitted 17 recommendations to the Board of Super- visors that were adopted for implementation. Recommendations specifically related to public safety included 1) encouraging school districts to provide education programs through col- laboration with community resource agencies; 2) expanding system capacity to perform in- terventions at an earlier point in community based settings; 3) educating the public and poli- cymakers about the effectiveness and cost benefits of treatment; 4) expand treatment services for adolescents; 5) direct courts to develop sentencing strategies to more effectively manage the behavior or drug offenders; 6) improve ability to target consumers of treatment and to assess/identify risk; 7) pilot integrated treatment approach involving Drug Courts and an enhanced Probationers in Recovery model; and 8) use community-policing strategies to engage the public in methamphetamine issues. San Diego County Children & Families Commission All 4 Kids-Stage One Strategic PlanlCalendar Year 2000 The California Children and Families Act (Proposition 10) was passed by voters in Novem- ber 1998. This statewide ballot initiative added a fifty cent per pack tax on cigarettes. The revenue is to be used to fimd educatioq health and child care programs that promote early childhood development from the prenatal period to age five. The San Diego County Children and Families Commission was established to implement the Act on a local level. This Strate- gic Plan was produced after hundreds of hours spent gathering community input by con- ducting twelve regional forums with 620 community members, telephone surveys of over 400 households and 53 public testimony presentations. The extensive input was obtained to determine the nature and type of services needed in various communities throughout the county. II- 10 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan An assessment of risk factors revealed: 17% of children age five or younger live in poverty; the teen pregnancy rate is notable; there is a lack of adequate prenatal care; over 86,446 reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children are received annually by the Children's Service Bureau; 42% of children age five and under may need child care; thousands of fami- lies (with children ages five and younger) are on waiting lists for subsidized child care or preschool programs; the costs for infant care at a licensed child care center is unaffordable for many parents. Throughout the county, community members voiced common desires for health, childcare and social services to be located in neighborhoods, culturally responsive and locally con- trolled by community members and collaborative groups. Common themes also included gaps in services for early childhood health, developmental screenings and services for chil- dren with special needs. Other service gaps included lack of information about services; inadequate transportation to access services; and insufficient finances to afford services. Common concerns were expressed about basic infrastructure deficiencies such a housing, transportation and health insurance. Services needed to strengthen families were defined as parenting education; substance abuse treatment; family cise management services; home visitingkounseling; domestic violence education and career development for parents. Gun Safety Pilot Project (July 2000) Children's Hospital & Health Center (Center for Healthier Communities for Children); American Academy of Pediatrics In San Diego County, over 750 children have been injured or killed by a gun since 1990. Between 1994 and 1996 guns were the leading cause of death for San Diego children ages 15-19 and the leading cause of death for 10-14 year olds. (Safe Kids Coalition) Children's Hospital collaborated with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to deliver a physiciambased gun safety education pilot project (the gun safety project) in October 1999. The initial pilot included 10 medical practices representing diverse geographic locations throughout San Diego County. Once pediatricians agreed to participate in the project, train- ing in parent education about gun safety and providing related information and gun locks (during office visits) was provided. Parents who brought in their child (between the ages of 1-16 years) for a physical exam or general check-up were asked to complete a survey regarding child safety issues, which included gun safety. The Gun Safety Pilot Project learned (through the use of surveys): 1) of those parents who stored a gun in their home, 52% (45) reported having a locking device on their gun; and 2) those who didn't have a locking device, 49% (22) agreed to take a locking device home. Before participating in the project, none of the parents who were surveyed by phone reported using a trigger lock on their gun. However, after participating in the project, 63% of the parents participating in the phone survey who owned a gun reported using a trigger lock. Project evaluation results indicate that physician counseling was an effective approach in promoting trigger lock use. Programs such as the Gun Safety Pilot Project may have a significant impact on promoting gun safety and in that way reduce the risk of unintentional firearm injuries to children and youth II- 1 1 County of San Diego Safe Schools Task Force Final Report (June 2000) Attorney General & State Superintendent of Public Instruction In February 1999, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin and Attorney General Bill Lockyer formed the Safe Schools Task Force to further combat crime in schools and create a stronger partnership between schools and law enforcement to keep schools safe/free from violence. The 23-member Task Force--representing education, law enforce- ment, community groups and youth- -identified model strategies and programs for improving school safety, determined current needs and made recommendations to strengthen partner- ships between schools and law enforcement to enhance school safety. The report contains eight key policy recommendations and includes 46 strategies to strengthen school safety in California. A major recommendation (#3) was made to increase law enforcement and probation officers as partners on school campuses. These professionals can link families to appropriate coun- seling services; provide a social safety net for children at risk of delinquency; effectively reduce truancy; supervise court wards on campus; conduct home visits; and respond to minor crime on campuses. A related recommendation (#5) was made to provide youth development activities that pro- vide academic challenges and provide reagworld community service opportunities. Strategies for implementing this recommendation include promotion of after-school programs; and cre- ating partnerships with community-based organizations to keep schools open after hours for academic enrichment, tutoring, mentoring, extra curricular activities, athletics, school and community service projects. San Diego County Child & Family Health & Well-Being Report Card 2000 The County Board of Supervisors initiated the development of the Report Card to monitor the impact of system change initiated in 1998. These changes included welfare reform; movement toward Medi-Cal managed health care; and the creation of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, which reorganized the health and human service deliv- ery system on a regional basis. The Report Card monitors this impact by measuring five out- comes related to the overall health and well being of children and families. These outcome measures are economic security; good health; appropriate access to services; a safe environment and educational achievement. Highlights of the data provided in the Report Card are displayed in Summary Tables (see Appendix). The data summarized in Table I showed statistically significant improvement in a number of risk factors over a 3 to 5 year period. Risk factor areas in need of improvement included: 1) unemployment rate; 2) teen birth rate (notably in the central region); 3) rate of domestic violence reports (notably in the central region); 4) number of youth offender cases filed in court (notably in the central region); 5) number of childredyouth who are victims of violent crimes (notably in central region); and 6) the high school dropout rate. II- 12 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Data were available for 25 comparisons between San Diego County and/or the state or nation, summarized in Table 1 1. San Diego compares favorably to the state and/or nation in a majority of the outcome measures. The County does not compare as well in the following areas of risk: 1) percent of childredyouth living in poverty; 2) percent of youth who attempted suicide in the prior year (reported by 9tk12th graders); 3) percent of chil- dredyouth (ages 0 - 18) with health insurance (notably in the central and north coastal regions); 4) rates of unintentional injurieddeaths in childredyouth; 5) unintentional injurieddeaths (ages 16 - 20) due to alcohol/drug-related motor vehicle crashes (notably in north inland and north central regions.) Although the Report Card shows positive overall progress, there were areas that showed statistically significant disparities among racial/ethnic groups. For blacks, these risk factors included 1) youth offenders having cases filed in court; 2) childredyouth who are victims of violent crimes; 3) unintentional injuries of childredyouth; 4) high school dropout; and 5) low birth weight. For Hispanics, these risk factors included high school dropout and teen births. For Native Americans, this risk factor was the high school dropout rate. Suicide Homicide Audit Committee (SHAC 2000 Final Report) The County of San Diego Health & Human Services Agency (Office of Violence and Injury Prevention) formed this committee and tasked the group with identifling causes and devel- oping solutions for the prevention of youth suicide and homicide. Since 1995, SHAC has re- viewed more than 148 deaths of children and youth ages 8 to 19 years. Four years of data have been collected. 1998 statistics indicate there were 18 suicides of youth between the ages of 14-19 years (72% were males; 28% were females). Firearms were used in 50% of the suicides. During the same period, there were 15 homicides of youth between the ages of 16 to 19 years (93% were males; 7% were females). Firearms were used in 87% of the homicides. Risk factors commonly associated with suicide and homicide include: access to firearms; drug and/or alcohol use; ineffective parental guidance or support; academic failure; unhealthy interpersonal relationships; witness to or victim of domestic violence; and impaired self-esteem. Protective factors identified by the SHAC committee include: youth involvement in extracur- ricular activities; open family communication; family involvement in school and academic activities; educating community in suicide/homicide risk factors; addressing children's well- being; having significant adult role model; and providing youth with supervisiodguidance by a responsible adult. Services and programs/promising approaches which have been instrumental in addressing youth suicide and homicide include after school programs; early assessment teams; gun safety and storage education programs; response review teams; gender-responsive services 9 for girls; school attendance programs; and preventative education efforts. II- 13 County of San Diego County of San Diego’s Health and Human Services Agency Strategic Plan In its strategic plan, the County of San Diego’s Health and Human Services Agency identi- fies Safe Communities as the fourth of its five major goals. The Critical Hours Program was implemented as an innovative approach to improve the delivery of mandated services and prevention of harm to vulnerable populations. Futurescan: Energizing Community Action United Way of San Diego County, 1996 Major Trends In San Diego County: San Diego County is California’s second largest metro- politan area, second only to Los Angeles, with a population of 3 million in the year 2000 and growing at a rate of about 50,000 persons each year. The actual population growth has con- sistently exceeded projections. Despite indicators of economic prosperity for the region as a whole, the county’s increase in poverty stands in shocking contrast to its economic perform- ance. Children in San Diego County are consistently the largest population age group in poverty, increasing more rapidly than their percentages in the population growth. San Diego County is an area rich in cultural diversity. In 1990, one out of two children under age 9 were white. Projections are that by 2010, two out of three of these children will be persons of color, with Hispanic children representing the largest growth (29% in 1990 to 51% in 2010). 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) San Diego City Schools, Grades 9-12 YRBS questionnaire was developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) with repress from federal, state and local departments of education to measure behaviors that put teens at risk for disease, injury or death, specifically: 0 Behaviors that result in accidental and non-accidental injuries Drug and alcohol use 0 Tobacco use 0 Sexual behavior that results in STDs and unintended pregnancies 0 Eating habits Exercise During the 30 days preceding the survey, 14% of students had carried a weapon, compared to the nationwide rate of 18.3%. Slightly more than one-third (34.8%) had been in a physical fight during the last 12 months, compared to 36.6% nationwide. Over one-fifth (22.3%) had seriously considered attempting suicide during the preceding 12 months; nationwide the rate was 20.5%. 9.2% actually attempted suicide, compared to 7.7% nationwide. Tobacco use was lower in San Diego (62.8%) than nationwide (70.2%). Hispanic youth were more likely to use cigarettes here (71.3%) and nationwide (76.9%). Alcohol use (life- time) was slightly lower in San Diego than the nation (75.3% and 79.1%, respectively). Asian students had the lowest rate of alcohol use. Students who consumed five or more drinks on at least one occasion during the last 30 days (39.4%) were significantly lower than II- 14 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan the national rate (33.4%). Marijuana use was lower than the national rate (43.1%, San Diego; 47.1% nationwide). Inhalant use was slightly lower than the national rate (1 1.7%, San Diego; 16.0% nationwide). Cocaine use was the only substance abuse indicator that was nearly equal here and nationwide (8.4% San Diego; 8.2% nationwide). African American students were more likely here and nationwide to have engaged in sexual intercourse in their lifetime, and to have sexual intercourse with four or more partners. Slightly more San Diego youth described themselves as overweight (29.9) compared to the nationwide rate (27.3%), and more San Diego youth (43.3%) attempted to lose weight during the 30 days preceding the survey, compared to nationwide (39.7%). San Diego students participate in daily PE classes (40.6%) at a higher rate than nationwide (27.4%). First Biennial San Diego County California Healthy Kids Survey, September 2000 The California Healthy Kids Survey includes many of the substance abuse indicators as the YRBS, but includes countywide youth in grades 7,9 and 11, and compares San Diego youth with similar California youth who participated in the California Yearly Survey. Current drinking rates and binge drinking for San Diego students are nearly the same as statewide rates. Youngsters in San Diego reported significantly higher lifetime alcohol use than their counterparts throughout the state. Overall drug use rates are significantly below statewide rates; rates for ‘ever high on drugs’ are also not significantly different from state- wide rates. Current and daily tobacco use also approximates the statewide rates, but lifetime smoking was significantly lower in San Diego County. In San Diego County, students reported carrying guns on school property in the past 30 days at the rates of 2% (7th grade), 3% (9th grade), and 2% (1 lth grade). Six percent (6%) of 7th and 1 lth graders, and 7% of 9th graders reported carrying a knife on school property in the past 30 days. About 10% of 7th graders, 1 1 % of 9th and 1 1 th graders reported gang membership, inter- preted more as a reflection of the romanticized view of gang membership and desire for inclusion rather than an accurate predictor of actual gang involvement. Youth Health Care Council of San Diego County Solutions for Better Health Care for Youth Advocating for better health care for youth, this report includes the Council’s primary goals: (1) Primary health care services which are more age-appropriate and ‘youth friendly’; (2) improved access by youths to health care services; and (3) increased focus on youth by man- aged care plans. The report summarizes the results of the YRBS administered to San Diego City Schools in 1997. During the 30 days preceding the survey: 18% carried a weapon 24% smoked cigarettes 0 47% had at least one drink of alcohol; 27% had five or more drinks within two hours 26% used marijuana and 4% used cocaine II- 15 County of San Diego Other indicators include: 37% were in a physical fight during last 12 months 9.5% had attempted suicide in last 12 months 16% had used illegal drugs other than marijuana and cocaine 14% sniffed inhalants 45% had experience sexual intercourse, and 3 1% were currently sexually active San Diego City Unified School District California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings, Spring 1999 This study presents findings of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, violence and safety, and physical health. In summary: Alcohol is by far the most widely used substance across grades. Cigarette smoking rates tend to fall below alcohol use but are higher than marijuana. Marijuana exceeds all other drugs in high school. Inhalants are the most widely used drugs among 7th graders. Conclusions about the Review of Relevant Strategic Plans, Task Force and Other Agency Reports Risk Factors. The following risk factors were identified from these summaries. Youth substance abuse 0 Poverty 0 Teen pregnancy 0 Poor academic achievement/failure 0 Lack of prenatal care 0 Child abuseheglect 0 Gun injurieddeaths 0 Unsafe schools Unemployment Domestic violence Firearms access Lack of parental guidance Poor self esteem Violent crime victimization Suicide thoughts/attempts II- 16 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Service NeeddGaps were identified as: Expansion of after school program (Critical Hours) Parent education Substance abuse treatment (residentiaynon-residential) Risk factor assessmentEarly assessment teams Peer support program (countywide) Substance abuse education by CBOs in school districts Drug Courts Child care e e e e e e e e e e Health care Transportation to access services Housing Home visiting Counseling Domestic violence education Career development for parents Probation officers/Law enforcement officers on school campuses Gender specific services Truancy programs Community Risk and Needs Survey The JJCC’s Technical Work Group devised a questionnaire/survey for community input for the CPA 2000 application. The questionnaire/survey comprised three areas, and asked respondents for their opinions regarding: A. The three most significant risk factors that place youth at risk of entering or continuing in the B. The three most significant servicedneeds that respondents think would address the above risk C. What existing services or proven programs should be expanded or augmented to meet the juvenile justice system; factors; and above needs, by region. On September 25,2000, 720 surveys were distributed to individuals throughout the County representing: Community-based organizations Parents County Government e Community Collaboratives Law Enforcement e Youth Under 18 Education Judges A cover letter explaining AB 191 3 was included, along with an OJJDP table with risk factors for entry into the juvenile justice system. A copy of the survey and accompanying materials is in- cluded in the Appendix. By October 12, 37% (268) of the surveys distributed were received and tabulated. II- 17 County of San Diego Survey Results TABLE 11-1 1 Who Responded to the Survey? Organization Percentage Count Community-based Organization 22% 55 I I County Government I 36 I 15% I Law Enforcement 22 Missing 100% 246 TOTAL 10% 25 All Others 2% 5 Judge 8 Yo 20 Youth Under 18 7% 18 Community Collaborative 10% 25 Parent 11% 26 Education 15% 36 Countywide Risks Respondents had the opportunity to list three countywide risks, for a possible total of 804 responses. With some blank responses, and others unable to code, a total of 693 responses were tabulated. Since the survey did not ask respondents to rank the risks, all were considered equally. The Top 5 risks comprised 337 out of 693 responses, or 49% of responses. Family management problems headed the list of top countywide risks (14%), followed by friends who engage in problem behavior (12%). Youth andor their families who abused substances was the third risk, with availability of drugs in their communities as the fourth highest risk. A lack of commitment to school rounded out the top five risks. II- 18 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan TABLE 11-1 2 Top 5 Countywide Risks Identified by the Respondents Risk Percentage Count 1. Family management problems 10% 66 3. Substance abuse-individual/familv 12% 81 2. Friends who engage in problem behavior 14% 95 4. Availability of drugs 6% 41 5. Lack of commitment to school 8% 54 Countywide Needs Again, there were a possible total of 804 responses. With some missing responses and others not able to be coded, 636 responses were tabulated. The top need identified was family services, which included responses such as parenting skills, parent training, family counseling, parenting education, and family therapy. Mentoring was the second highest response, followed by substance abuse interventions (including treatment, outpatient and residential treatment). Competency building was the fourth highest response. Competency building was a section heading in the sample list of prevention and justice services/programs that included such subheadings as self-esteem, communication skills, life skills, mentoring, and anti-gang programs. Alcohol/drug/tobacco prevention and outreach and anti-gang programs were the fifth highest responses. The Top 5 Needs comprise 268, or 42.1% of 636 responses. TABLE 11-13 Top 5 County wide Needs Identified by the Respondents Needs Percentage Count 1. Family Services: Parenting skills/ training/ 11.9% 76 counseling/ educationltherapy 2. Mentoring 6.1 YO 39 3. Substance abuse interventionl treatment/ 8.3% 53 outpatienthesidential 4. Competency Building 5.1% 33 5. Anti-gang programs 5.1% 33 5. Alcohol/drug/tobacco prevention/ outreach 5.3% 34 II- 19 County of San Diego Existing Programs to Meet Identified Needs There were seven regional choices where the programs or services were needed in the county, including countywide. The majority of respondents checked countywide as the region that needed the identified programs. TABLE 11-14 Needs by Region as Identified by Respondents COUNTWIDE ubstance Abuse Treatment cademic Enrichment/Tutors Substance Abuse Treatment Before/After School Programs 5 8 Critical Hours, Project REACH Victimization Programs 6 6 Bright Families, CATs NORTH COASTAL NEED RANK COUNT IDENTIFIED PROGRAM Parentingmamily SkillsFamily 1 2 EYE Counseling NEED ParentingEamily Skills/Family Counseling Juvenile HalVJuvenile Court Substance Abuse Treatment Substance Abuse Prevention Mental Health NORTH INLAND I I RANK IDENTIFIED PROGRAM COUNT 1 Parent Project, EYE, Teen-2-TeenY 7 Family Empowerment Program, Tough Love, EPSDT 2 Breaking Cycles 5 3 2 3 CATs, Teen Recovery Centers 2 3 2 1 II-20 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan ~~~~ ~ EAST COUNTY NEED IDENTIFIED PROGRAM COUNT RANK Recreation YMCA 5 1 Tutoring 2 CATs, Teen Recovery Center, 3 2 Early Interventions 3 2 ParentingRamily Skills/Counseling CATs, SDYCS 3 2 Mentors Home Start 3 LEAPS I Truancy Prevention 13121 I CENTRAL NORTH NEED IDENTIFIED PROGRAM COUNT RANK ParentingRamily SkillsRamily Choice 3 3 Early Intervention 2 4 Recreation Storefront, CROP ' 2 4 Emergency Shelter UPAC Bright Families, SAY 3 3 Academic Enrichment/Tutors CATs 4 2 Mentors CATs, SAY, Door of Hope Counseling Corrective Behavior Institute, 7 1 SOUTH COUNTY NEED IDENTIFIED PROGRAM COUNT RANK ParentingEamily SkilldFamily 7 2 Mentors YMCA, Reflections Counseling CATs, SD Mars Program, 8 1 Academic Enrichment 3 6 Summit Schools, Reflections Day Treatment ProgramsDay Reporting Breaking Cycles, YDC, ROPP, 5 4 Reflections Recreation Youthbuild, Boys & Girls Clubs, 4 5 Substance Abuse Prevention YMCA, CATs 4 5 SDYCS, Storefront Gang Programs 3 6 11-2 1 County of San Diego Identification of At Risk Communities and Neighborhoods Figure 11-1 on the following page indicates the most at-risk communities and neighborhoods within the County based upon: 0 The top five law enforcement jurisdictions for juvenile arrests 0 The top five school districts for drop-outs (grades 9-12) 0 The top five zip codes for referrals to Probation This representation of the data graphically illustrates the risk to communities in South County and Central San Diego regions. El Cajon has two zip codes in the top 15 for referrals to Probation. While neither El Cajon zip code is in the top five, if the total referrals for these two zip codes are combined, El Cajon is the top region for referrals to Probation. 11-22 tn S 0 .I Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan CHAPTER 111: Local Juvenile Justice Action Strategy Identification of Current Needs/lssues in Present System Which Would Provide for a More Comprehensive Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime A t a meeting on November 1 , 2000, the members of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) reviewed the communities at risk data as presented in Chapter 11.. Based upon this information, the JJCC developed a list of the top risk factors for juvenile delinquency that San Diego’s youth are currently facing. Top Risk Factors for Juvenile Delinquency Family Management Problems-risk factors for adolescent problem behaviors such as substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy, school dropout, violence, family history of problem behavior, family conflict, and favorable parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behavior Substance Abuse/Availability of Drugs-risk factors include the use of alcohol, tobacco, other drugs Negative Peer Influencerisk factors include having friends who engage in problem behavior, such as substance abuse, delinquency, violence, and gang involvement Lack of School Commitment-risk factors include early and persistent anti-social behaviors at school, bullying, academic failure beginning in elementary school, truancy, school disciplinary problems, dropout, and lack of parental expectations for child’s educational performance A policy decision was made by the JJCC to select programs for hnding under the Comprehen- sive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP) that provide services andor interventions (protective factors) that address the above risk factors. III- 1 County of San Diego Current Needs/lssues in the Present System Family Services (comprehensive, broadly defined by each region) Parent education and training (including gender-specific issues) Substance abuse treatment and prevention Positive Peer Cultureflnfluence Gang prevention Addressing hate crimes Positive after school activities, recreation Academic enhancement, tutoring Truancy Programs/Services 0 Intensive supervision of 601 wards Academic enhancement, tutoring Mentoring Adult mentoring Peer mentoring/Support groups Competency Building Character building Decision-making skills Goal setting Career development Communication skills Values clarification Life skills 0 Literacy Independent living skills Strategy for Providing a More Comprehensive Continuum of Responses to Juvenile Crime Like the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), San Diego’s JJCC strongly believes that a continuum of treatment services must be available throughout the entire system of graduated sanctions for youthful offenders at all levels, including prevention, intervention, suppression and incapacitation. In 1996, the JJCC discussed and developed consensus on a number of common juvenile justice system themes or attributes (with both a prevention and graduated sanctions focus) that ut be incorporated into our CMJJP in order for it to succeed. The following themes, although identi- fied independently by the JJCC, recur throughout OJJDP’s Guide as well as San Diego’s Communitv-Based Punishment Options Plan, Local Action Plan, and San Diego’s Comprehen- sive Strategy for Youth, Families, and Community. These themes are built around a philosophy of enhancing the quality of life for youth and their families, so as to achieve significance and belonging to benefit a society which fimctions with social equality and mutual respect. 111-2 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan An Effective and Comprehensive Continuum of Prevention and Graduated Sanctions Must: 0 Promote a community delinquency prevention model as the most cost-effective and human-effective approach to reduce juvenile delinquency, and complemented by diversion and intervention resources that offer early identification, timely response, immediate consequences, and access to community-based resources at all levels (including status offenders). 0 Provide a full continuum of care, including ongoing support with access to compre- hensive community-based prevention and graduated sanctions resources, including: - Immediate intervertion for first time, nonviolent offenders. - Intermediate sanctions for more serious offenders. - Secure care programs for most violent offenders. - Aftercare programs involving family and community in reintegrating youth back into the community. 0 Be holistic (comprehensive or multi-systemic) and multi-disciplinary , dealing simultaneously with many aspects of youths’ lives, and typically addressing the youth’s family and relationships with intimacy, community, peers, school and work (i.e., offer wrap-around services). Include youth and other members of the community in program design, development and implementation. 0 Utilize a case manager and case management approach that begins at intake and follows youth through various program phases until successful completion, and involves development of individual treatment plans that are updated on a regular basis. 0 Build on youths’ strengths rather than focusing on their weaknesses. Primary emphasis should be shifted from risks to resiliency. 0 Hold families accountable for their children. 0 Be family focused, strengthen families and provide intergenerational family support services, resources and parenting skills. 0 Be gender-responsive, and culturally and linguistically appropriate. Programs must reach and be accepted by diverse racial, cultural and socioeconomic groups in the community. 0 Be intensive, which may involve multiple contacts with at-risk youth by workers who have manageable caseloads that allow for individualized attention and follow through. 111-3 County of San Diego Offer comprehensive alcohol and other drug treatment, recovery and aftercare services in all phases of the continuum, including prevention. 0 Have a combination of a solid focus on education, job readiness, skills training and employment combined with intensive support services. Utilize comprehensive community risk and resource models that prioritize target areas. Adopt common definitions, referral and response protocols, and instruments for assessing risks to the community and treatment needs of individual juvenile offenders that may be used by all agencies that participate in the juvenile justice system (including law enforcement and community-based). 0 Develop information systems that enable data sharing for client case management, tracking, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, and that are accessible by criminal justice agencies and collaborating entities (as authorized by law). Provide ongoing evaluation based on agreed upon assessment and response mechanisms by all system participants for informed decision making. Adopt a system wide resource allocation strategy, rather than funding on a program-by-program basis. Look at service consolidation and redesign where appropriate. Chapter IV presents seven existing, proven programs that are being hded under the Crime Prevention Act of 2000. These programs will serve about 6,500 youth and their families who are at risk of entering in or continuing in the juvenile justice system. In order to provide a more comprehensive continuum of responses to juvenile crime, the current needs and issues in the present system will be woven into the proposed programs. Specifically, identified at-risk youth, juvenile wards and their families will receive additional substance abuse treatment, parenting training and mentoring, and truancy prevention services will be targeted to 601 wards. 111-4 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Goals, Objectives and Outcomes of the CMJJP P ursuant to the Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Schiff-Cardenas, AB 1913), the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council has established the following goals and objectives for San Diego's Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan. Program outcomes will be reported as required to the Board of Corrections. CMJJP Goals: 0 Prevent youth from becoming delinquent by focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth. Improve the juvenile justice system response to delinquent offenders through a continuum of graduated sanctions that includes intervention, suppression, and incapacitation for the most serious, violent, chronic juvenile offenders. Objective 1. Continue to reduce juvenile crime in San Diego County % Chanae 1995 1998 1999 1995-1 999 1998-1 999 Juvenile arrest rate per 100,000 in San Diego County 7,304 7,398 6,980 -4.4% -5.6% Number of Referrals to Probation 13,212 12,977 1 1,944 -9.6% Number of Petitions Filed 6,207 in Juvenile Court 6,766 6,395 -8% Average # wards under probation supervision Estimated juvenile population ages 10- 17 3,814 4,749 4,126 8.2% -13% 268,743 290,878 298,2 19 10.9% 2.5% III- 5 County of San Diego Objective 2. Maintain or exceed an 85% rate of successful completion of probation. % Chanqe 1995 1998 I999 1995-1999 1998-1 999 1,035 1,969 2,442 136% 24% Minors with at least 12 months of wardship when jurisdiction terminated Successful completion of 840 1,691 2,073 147% 22.6% probation-no new refenal(s) to probation (81%) (86%) (85%) 111-6 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan CHAPTER IV: Programs Proposed for CPA 2000 Funding I Challenge Grant I: Breaking Cycles Graduated Sanctions Program Objective Breaking Cycles is an existing Challenge Grant I, graduated sanctions program that provides a continuum of custody options and interventions for adjudicated youth and their families. CPA 2000 funds will be used to augment program staff effective April 2001 to provide additional in- terventions including substance abuse treatment, a positive peer influence, parenting, mentoring, competency, and mental health services. In addition, CPA 2000 funds will be used to replace grant and partial match fimds that expire in June 2001. Target Population The target population is 1,200 medium- to high-risk youth, ages 12 to 18, who are wards of the Court committed to the Breaking Cycles program by the Juvenile Court, their siblings and families. All areas of the county are served. Program Description Wards are committed to the program by the Juvenile Court for a period of 150,240, or 365 days. A multi-agency, multi-disciplinary team conducts a risk assessment while the youth is detained in Juvenile Hall. This assessment is augmented with input from education, mental health, and the parents. Individual case plans are based on the youth’s and family’s strengths, risks and crimino- genic needs. The multi-disciplinary assessment team determines the level of supervision, pro- gram interventions and placement. Parents and family members are encouraged to participate in all aspects of the program, including parent support groups and the Parent Advisory Panel. The Breaking Cycles umbrella of services includes the Assessment and Reassessment Teams, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health services, community supervision, case management, and the following custody options: 0 Juvenile Ranch Facility (custody program for boys) 0 Girls Rehabilitation Facility (custody program for girls) Centre-City Youth Day Center (day treatment as a step-down from custody) N- 1 County of San Diego 0 Reflections Central day treatment program (a Medi-Cal certified site focusing on mental health issues) 0 North County Youth Day Center (day treatment as a step-down from custody) North County Reflections day treatment program (with a focus on mental health issues) 0 Community Unit (an intensive, community, multi-agency supervision and treatment program). The multidisciplinary team identifies the program placement and needs. The juvenile is placed in a series of programs, including custody and day treatment, and receives in-home community based services. This continuum of custody assists in the transition from custody to non-custody, thereby ensuring greater success in maintaining a crime-free and drug-free lifestyle. Youth move up or down the continuum as needed based upon their behavior and achievement of goals. Par- ents and family members are involved in the development of a case plan and in every aspect of their child’s progress. Community-based teams consisting of a Deputy Probation Officer, a Correctional Deputy, a Youth and Family Counselor and an Alcohol and Drug Counselor work with the entire family in the last phase of the commitment time to provide support and ensure that community reintegration occurs successfully. The original program design underestimated the number of youth to be served by the program. In addition, the process evaluation indicates that these medium-to high-risk youth require a much higher level of supervision, case management and treatment services than first anticipated. This program was previously funded through the Challenge Grant Program, which expires June 200 1. County general funds supplement the current program. CPA funds are requested to replace expiring grant funds and to further augment treatment services in the program. Partners This collaborative program integrates existing community resources with the program. The back- bone of Breaking Cycles is the multi-disciplinary assessment process that occurs at the front end of the program. The Assessment Team is comprised of professionals from Probation, mental health, education, drug and alcohol treatment, and youth and family counseling. Together they complete a strength-based risk and needs assessment, develop a case plan and determine the ap- propriate placement for the offender with parent participation. Contracts are held with commu- nity-based agencies for Youth and Family Counselors, Alcohol and Drug Counselors and Treat- ment, Psychiatrists to conduct mental health assessments and evaluations and for Parent Advocates to provide support and referral services. Our partners include San Diego Youth and Community Services, Social Advocates for Youth, the EYE (formerly Escondido Youth Encounter), Lifeline, South Bay Community Services, and San Diego Association of Governments. The existing contracts will be modified to add the positions and other appropriations contained in CPA 2000. These agencies are proven in the community, and possess a knowledge base of the Breaking Cycles program operations and a shared commitment to its success. IV-2 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Information Sharing Breaking Cycles Graduated Sanctions data is collected and shared with partnering agencies from the Probation Department, Juvenile Court, Community Schools, Community Based Agencies, and SANDAG. Automated systems include the School Information System (SIS), Regional Juvenile Information System (REJIS), and the Juvenile Case Management System (JCMS). Formal writ- ten agreements with collaborating agencies, i.e., contracts, memorandums of agreement, and memorandums of understanding are utilized for service provision. Challenge Grant hnding provided a process and impact evaluation that is currently being con- ducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division. Results are reported every six months in a report to the Board of Corrections and shared with all program staff and the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. The final report will be published in October 2001. Demonstrated Effectiveness The Breaking Cycles project is based on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion’s (OJJDP) Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders in America’s Communities. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors formed the Juvenile Jus- tice Coordinating Council (JJCC) comprised of key community stakeholders, both government and non-government, in part to develop a Local Action Plan to identify gaps in the system, and determine concrete support services and infrastructure needs. San Diego’s Breaking Cycles project was approved by the State Board of Corrections (BOC) to fill system gaps in San Diego. OJJDP developed the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offend- ers, then selected the County of San Diego as one of the three cities in the nation to receive their assistance to develop a Local Action Plan to implement the Comprehensive Strategy. The Strat- egy is a conceptual model to coordinate and enhance youth-centered efforts in cities and counties across the country. This model is predicated upon a philosophy of shared responsibility and coor- dinated action to prevent juvenile delinquency and promote positive development of youth. This strategy prevents duplication of efforts, identifies system gaps and creates a seamless web of integrated supervision, service and support for youth. Consultants hired by OJJDP from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and Develop- mental Research and Programs conducted a site visit to San Diego to begin the planning and training processes for the Comprehensive Strategy. San Diego’s model was developed with input from diverse sources that contributed experience, professional expertise, national, state and local data and statistics, and many creative ideas and methodologies. Researchers, front-line staff, executives and community representatives worked together to craft a course of action. Our strate- gic plan proposes an integrated systems approach with an expectation of sustained and measured results. Research conducted by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division indicates that recidivism has been reduced from 38% in 1995 to 30% in 1997 and 28% in 1999. Survey results indicate that the program has a positive impact on youth in the Iv-3 County of San Diego areas of behavior/relationships, substance use and performance in school. Customer satisfaction in these areas has increased from 45.5% in 1999 to 48% in the first six months of 2000. Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) true Findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successful completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup will be used to measure participants’ resiliency at initial assessment and at six months or exit from the program. The current status/baseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be estab- lished by July 1 , 2001 , using a comparable group of current Breaking Cycles participants. Out- comes for program participants will only be measured during the 12-month period July 1 , 2001 through June 30,2002. It is expected that CPA 2000 youth will do as well as the current Breaking Cycles youth on these outcomes, and that resiliency scores will increase for 70% of the participants in the program. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA Cost: $ 2,870,974 Anticipated Earned Interest: 820,000 Total CPA Cost: 3,690,974 Cost/Client: $3,076 Total Project Cost: $ 4,456,322 Cost/Client: $3,714 Breaking Cycles is an existing program currently funded by Challenge Grant I (expires 6/30/01), a required match, and an overmatch (County General Fund). CPA 2000 funds will be used to aug- ment the existing program with additional staff, contract services and equipment effective April 1, 2001. In addition, CPA 2000 funds will be used to replace expiring grant funds and a portion of the required match commencing July 1 , 200 1. Implementation Schedules/Time Frames Existing contracts will be amended during February and March 2001. Staff will be hired commencing April 1 , 200 1. Training will occur during the month of June, and the augmented program will be fully operationalized by July 1 , 200 1. Iv-4 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court Program Objective The Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court Program is an existing proven program with funding from State and Federal grants that are expiring June 30,2001. Additional funding comes from Superior Court, the County general fund, and federal substance abuse treatment grants. CPA funds will be used to augment the program effective March 1 , 2001 , adding one more drug court session serv- ing an additional 30 youth and their families. CPA funds will also be used to replace the expiring grants effective July 1 , 200 1. Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court is part of the continuum of substance abuse treatment in the juvenile justice system. Target Population Up to 160 non-violent, first or second time wards of the court with substance abuse problems. Minors referred to Drug Court must have three non-compliant events in order to be eligible for the program. Non-compliant events include testing positive for drugs or alcohol, failing to attend treatment or rehsing to participate in treatment. The Drug Court currently operates three sessions serving central San Diego and one session serving North County residents. Program Description The Honorable James Milliken, Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court, reviews all cases for acceptance into Delinquency Drug Court, including the North County Delinquency Drug Court. At the front end, Deputy Probation Officers assigned to the Intake and Investigation Division of Juvenile Field Services (JFS) evaluate minors using the Simple Screening Instrument (SSI). Based upon this information, the Probation Officer recommends, as a condition of probation, that a minor participate in substance abuse treatment. Should the Court concur with this recommen- dation, the minor is required to attend substance abuse treatment for up to nine (9) hours a week and to submit to random urinalysis testing. Non-violent wards of the court ordered to substance abuse treatment who have tested positive for drugs or alcohol, failed to attend treatment or refused to participate in treatment are eligible for Drug Court. Upon Drug Court entry, a Juvenile Recovery Specialist (JRS) assigned to the Substance AbuseDrug Court Unit refers minors to a Substance Abuse Treatment Program in their neighbor- hood. Substance abuse treatment providers report on the minor’s progress to the Juvenile Recov- ery Specialist. The Probation Officer provides case management and a progress report to the Court on a weekly basis on community, school and family. Before each Drug Court session, the Drug Court Team reviews each minor’s progress, including treatment and their behavior in the community and at home. Unlike traditional courts, a group consensus is reached regarding possible incentives or sanctions. The Judge makes the final decision .on the bench. The program stresses swift and certain consequences for failure to comply with the orders of court and provides incentives to stay sober. The adolescent treatment provider network conducts an in- IV- 5 County of San Diego depth substance abuse assessment using the Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse Inventory (CASAI) to determine dosage. Interventions focus on intensive substance abuse treatment and probation supervision, with frequent court appearances, frequent, random drug testing, individual, group and family counseling. Participants are required to attend substance abuse treatment pro- grams, operated by eight contractors located at 26 sites throughout the County. The contractors are monitored by the County’s Health and Human Services Agency, Alcohol and Drug Services Division. Twelve 12 months clean and sober, law-abiding behavior is required for program graduation. Partners Drug Court is a partnership between the Juvenile Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender, Health and Human Services, law enforcement agencies, adolescent substance abuse treatment providers and the Probation Department. Collaborative partners include a Judge, Deputy District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Officer, Juvenile Recovery Specialist, District Attorney Investigator, and a Police Officer. The minor’s parent or guardian is also part of the Drug Court Team. With the assistance of eight substance abuse treatment provid- ers located at 26 sites throughout the County of San Diego staff address intervention and treat- ment needs of minors ‘enrolled in the program. The service array includes short-term relapse beds and residential drug treatment programs. Information Sharing San Diego County Drug Court data is collected through automated systems such as the Manage- ment Information System (MIS), School Information System (SIS), and Regional Juvenile Infor- mation System (REJIS). The Drug Court Team meets monthly to conduct planning and review outcomes. Regular updates are provided to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the County Board of Supervisors. Every other month, the Drug Court Evaluation Team meets to ensure program consistency and to refine data collection techniques and forms. Demonstrated Effectiveness The drug court movement began in the 1980’s in response to the growing number of drug-related court cases. The drug court approach departed from the traditional court approach by systemati- cally bringing drug treatment to the criminal justice population entering the court system. In the drug court, treatment is anchored in the authority of the judge who holds the offender personally and publicly accountable for treatment progress. (‘Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court Movement,’ Goldkamp, John, NIJ Update, 1995). Research and experience in intervention and treatment programming suggest that a highly struc- tured system of graduated sanctions holds significant promise. The graduated sanctions approach is designed to provide immediate intervention at the first offense to ensure that the juvenile’s mis- behavior is addressed by the family and community or through formal adjudication and sanctions by the juvenile justice system, as appropriate. (‘Guide for Implementing Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.’ Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Planning. P.10). IV-6 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use in California appear to be dropping faster compared to national trends. Up to 1997, the statewide survey of California Students (CSS) results were consistent with national rates, which also rose during the 1990s-but the national results for 1999 have reached a plateau or showed a moderate decline. For example, in the recently released 1999 findings from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), there has been a consis- tent downward trend in illicit drug use, including marijuana, among youths age 12-1 7 over the past three years, after dramatic increases in the early 1990s. Their marijuana use decreased to 7% in 1999 from 9.4% in 1997. (‘The First Biennial San Diego County California Healthy Kids Survey 1998-1999 and 8th Biennial The California Student Survey 1999-2000.’ Report to the San Diego County Office of Education, September 2000. The decline of drug use among teenagers may be the result of programs specifically designed to address the needs of minors with substance abuse issues. A host of research suggests that imple- menting an integrated continuum of graduated sanctions is effective in reducing substance abuse and juvenile crime. (‘Research on Drug Courts a Critical Review,’ National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, revised, 6-98, Belenko, Steven, PhD.; ‘Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components’, Department of Justice and the Office of Justice Planning Drug Courts Program Office; ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence & The Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice Systems Response to Drug Abuse & Crime in America,’ Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 74, #12, 1999). In addition to cost savings, all components of the justice system report that the drug court pro- grams are enabling their agencies to allocate criminal justice resources more efficiently. Prose- cutors and police in many jurisdictions report that the drug court has significantly enhanced the credibility of the law enforcement fhction, provides their agencies with a more effective repose to substance abuse, and is a significant alternative to the ‘revolving door’ syndrome that fre- quently results from the traditional case process. Experts agree that at least 45% of convicted drug offenders recidivate with a similar offense within two to three years. Depending upon the population targeted for drug court, and the degree of their dyshction, drug court participant recidivism ranges between 5% to 28%. Drug use is also reduced, and confirmed by urinalysis reports that are usually well over 90% negative. (‘Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts.’ Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, 1999). With regard to San Diego’s Juvenile Drug Court Program, of the 16 youth completing the program in December 1999, two relapsed but none sustained a true finding for a new criminal offense within six months following graduation. Of the two who relapsed, one spent one day in jail and the other was sanctioned with an increase in required drug treatment participation. Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) True Findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successful completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, results of urinalysis tests will measure substance use/abuse during program participation. Iv- 7 County of San Diego The current statushaseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be estab- lished by July 1 , 200 1, using a comparable group of current Drug Court participants. Outcomes for program participants will only be measured during the 12-month period July 1,2001 through June 30,2002. It is expected that CPA 2000 youth will do as well as or better than the current Drug Court youth on these outcomes. In addition, it is expected that CPA 2000 youth success- fully completing the program will have fewer True Findings on a new criminal offense than those not successfully completing the program. Results from urinalysis tests submitted by program participants will be analyzed during the vari- ous phases of program participation. It is expected that the interval between positive urinalysis tests will increase during program participation thus indicating a reduction in substance use/abuse by participants. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA 2000 Funds: $1,497,066 CosKlient: $9,357 Total Project Costs: $1,875,066 Cost/Client: $1 1,7 19 Implementation Schedulesflimeframes CPA funds will augment the existing program. Staff will be recruited, hired and trained com- mencing February 15,2001, for a fifth Drug Court session commencing March 1 , 200 1. CPA funds will also be used to replace expiring grants effective July 1,2001. The expanded and augmented program will be fully operationalized by July 1 , 200 1. Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP) Program Objective The Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP) is an existing program partially funded by the Board of Corrections through June 30,2002. CPA 2000 funds will be used commencing April 1 , 2001, to augment the existing program by increasing the size of the target population by 15 (from 68 to 83) and increasing the level of service for program participants in the areas of mental health and substance abuse treatment. Staff and the current evaluation being conducted by SANDAG identified the need for these additional services. IV- 8 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Target Population 83 fust- time wards, 15 ‘/z years of age and under, who meet the ‘8% criteria’ residing in the central San Diego region. Program Description The San Diego ROPP is based on a family-centered approach that helps families regain balance, maintain parental hierarchy, and strengthen boundaries while being adaptive and flexible to build healthy families. Currently, the existing ROPP population consists of wards that have offending patterns involving weapon use, victim injury, and prior dependency and delinquency referrals. The risk factors for becoming chronic, repeat offenders include family issues, school problems, pre-delinquency factors, and substance abuse issues. It is expected that by continuing this pro- gram the need for detention beds, out-of-home placements, as well as jail and prison beds for this population should be significantly reduced. CPA 2000 funds will increase the multi-disciplinary teams from three to four and place a Substance Abuse Specialist on each team. The multi-disciplinary teams (Probation Officer, Social Worker, Psychologist, and a Substance Abuse Specialist) provide integrated services to families of at-risk youth to minimize delinquency and the costs of processing youth through the Juvenile Justice System. All wards ages 15 ?h and under residing in specified zip codes are referred to the Supervisor of the ROPP program. The Supervisor screens each case using the Orange County 8% Assessment Tool. Those youth with at least three of the four risk factors are determined to be eligible for the program. Eligible youth are then randomized into Control and Experimental Groups. The Con- trol group gets probation as usual; the Experimental group enters ROPP. As required by the cur- rent ROPP contract with the Board of Corrections that does not expire until June 2002, San Diego will continue to assign youth to a control group for CPA 2000. A multi-disciplinary team assesses the youth’ and family using a Modified Bruner Assessment. Individual case plans are constructed for the youth and family, with family participation. More in-depth substance abuse, mental health and educational assessments are obtained if indicated by the Modified Bruner or interviews with family members or significant others. Specific interven- tions are provided to address the individual and specific needs of youth and families in the pro- gram. These interventions include housing, parenting, mentoring, substance abuse, positive peer activities, cultural outings, after school activities, recreation, academic enhancement, crisis intervention, community service and restitution. Partners ROPP is a collaborative program that integrates community resources with the program. Located in central San Diego, an at-risk community, ROPP has formed collaborations with the Union of Pan Asian Communities (UPAC) for on-site out-patient substance abuse treatment; New Begin- nings for family home visiting; Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) for a mobile health clinic and Protective Services Workers; San Diego Police Department as a community storefront option that provides safety and security on site; Spectrum for family counseling; County Office of IV-9 County of San Diego Education for two on-site classrooms and educational program; San Diego Youth and Community Services for alcohol and drug specialists; San Diego State University interns to assist with case management and program activities; and the Girl Scouts with activities for the female siblings. The teams work with each minor to successfully complete probation. Parental participation in structured programs is recognized by the ROPP collaborative to be a vital component, which contributes to the successhl completion of probation, establishes self-sufficiency and sustains responsible behavior. ROPP teams provide informative, educational and instructional activities to meet the core needs of protecting children, and wraparound services to preserve families and ensure community safety. Skilled mental health professionals, along with Protective Service Workers, and Alcohol and Drug Specialists assist in treatment with support from the probation department. The ROPP multi-agency, multi-disciplinary collaborative has developed into a responsible, concise group of professionals who have input into the development of the program in compliance with 747 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Individual staff talents and strengths have gone into developing new approaches of service delivery. The teams provide case assessment, planning and management. Tailored program components and referrals meet individual ward and family needs in an effort to facilitate the development of new patterns of thinking and behavior. ROPP teams and collaborative agencies ensure that community safety measures and offender accountability are addressed. The teams strive to empower the families to recognize and ultimately solve the problems related to their minor’s delinquent behavior. Parental involvement is an integral part of the treatment plan and process. ROPP teams provide a host of benefits, social services and extend extra curricular activities to strengthen ROPP families. Information Sharing ROPP data is collected in a Management Information System (MIS) that is shared with partnering agencies from the Probation Department, Health and Human Services, the FACTOR Center, The County Office of Education, Juvenile Court, Community Schools, Community Based Agencies, the Union of Pan Asian Communities (UPAC). Automated systems including the School Infor- mation System (SIS), REJIS, and the Juvenile Case Management System (JCMS). Formal written agreements with collaborating agencies, i.e., contracts, memorandums of agreement, and memorandums of understanding are utilized for service provision. Regular updates and reports are presented to the Juvenile Justice Commission, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, the Board of Corrections, and the County Board of Supervisors. Demonstrated Effectiveness Research indicates that children who become the 8% problem are dramatically different from those youth that are arrested once and do not return to juvenile court. ROPP is based on research and successful outcome measures attributed to the Orange County Probation Department IV- 10 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (Schumacher, M. & Kwtz, G. (2000). 8% Solution. Preventing Serious, Repeat, Juvenile Crime, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.). The target population for this program is very high-risk youth and their families. Orange County’s ‘8% Solution’ research shows that by identifying these families and intervention early with a multi-disciplinary assessment and services provided by assessed need, their risk of becoming chronic serious violent offenders is significantly reduced. In the end, the need for detention beds, out-of-home placements, as well as jail and prison beds for this population is significantly reduced. While not conclusive because of the small sample sizes and insufflcient follow-up periods involved, statewide findings indicate that: 0 Juveniles in the treatment group are showing greater improvements in average school days attended, classes passed, grade point average and credits earned. 0 Although juveniles in the treatment group are more often tested for drug use, the comparison group has a higher percentage of positive test results 0 Petitions filed and sustained for juveniles in the treatment group are less often for felonies compared to juveniles receiving only traditional probation services. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Criminal Justice Research Division, is currently evaluating this program using a pure experimental research design. The findings, based on data collected through December 3 1, 1999, indicate that the treatment and control groups are comparable. Comparability of the two groups strengthens the confidence in the final outcomes of the evaluation, ensuring that the outcomes resulted from the program and not by chance. San Diego’s ROPP at 12 months is achieving a significant reduction in risk factors for education (83% were at risk at initial assessment; 48% were at risk at 12 month assessment); substance abuse by ROPP ward (62% at initial; 48% at 12 months); parental substance abuse (57% at initial; 33% at 12 months); and criminal behavior (98% at initial; 56% at 12 months). Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) true findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successfd completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, the rate of participants assessed to be at risk for criminal behavior, parenting, and education will be measured by the modified Bruner Scale of Family Functioning upon entry and at six months. Finally, school performance will be measured by school attendance and grade point average at initial assessment and six months later. The current statushaseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be estab- lished by July 1,200 1, using the current ROPP control group as a comparison. Outcomes for program participants will only be measured during the 12-month period July 1,2001 through June IV- 1 1 County of San Diego 30,2002. It is expected that CPA 2000 ROPP youth will do better than the comparison group on these outcomes. A modified Bruner Scale of Family Functioning assessment will be administered on CPA 2000 youth at the initial assessment and at six months into the program. It is expected that the percent- age of youth at risk for criminal behavior, parenting, and education at initial assessment will be significantly reduced at the six-month assessment. School attendance and grade point average will be obtained at initial assessment and at six months. It is expected that the treatment group will improve significantly in these areas compared to the control group. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA Cost: $423,400 Cost/Client: $5,101 Total Project Cost: $1,169,132 CostKlient: $14,086 CPA finds will be used only for program augmentations effective April 1 , 200 1. Implementation ScheduledTime Frames Existing contracts will be amended during February and March 2001. Staff will be hired commencing April 1 , 200 1. Training will occur during the month of June, and the augmented program will be filly operationalized by July 1 , 2001. Challenge Grant II: Working to Insure and Nurture Girls’ Success (WINGS) Program Objective The Working to Insure and Nurture Girls’ Success (WINGS) is an existing Challenge Grant I1 Program. Challenge Grant finds are currently budgeted for three Probation contract monitoring staff and contract services. CPA 2000 finds will be used to augment the existing program effec- tive March 1,2001, with four specially trained Probation Officers to provide case management services. WINGS provides gender-responsive services to adolescent female offenders who are just beginning to demonstrate delinquent behaviors that have brought them to the attention of the juvenile justice system. The objective is to prevent juvenile female offenders from entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system. IV- 1 2 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Target Population The target population is juvenile female offenders ages 12 to 17 ?h years old referred to probation and residing in San Diego County. These offenders include 601 and 602 wards, as well as girls receiving diversion and informal supervision sanctions. Eligible candidates may not have more than four referrals to Probation, no more than two True Findings on a petition, and no out-of- home placement or custody greater than 90 days. With the addition of fourth year Challenge Grant funding, it is anticipated that 2,100 juvenile female offenders will be served over the four- year period (an additional 540 receiving services in year four). Program Description The WINGS program serves females that exhibit self-destructive behavior. They routinely involve themselves in delinquent at-risk behavior, such as truancy, alcohol and drug abuse, anti- social peers, victimization, and poor family functioning. All juvenile female offenders entering the system are referred to WINGS. Except for those assigned to the Control Group, all girls are eligible for gender-responsive services. Referrals are assigned by zip code to a particular WINGS contractor. The Home Visitor conducts a home interview and completes the San Diego Regional Resiliency (R&R) checkup. The Multi- disciplinary team meets to review the case file, the R&R, the interview, and an Individual Girl Plan and Family Plan is developed. Reassessments are conducted by the Team as needed but always at a new arrest or termination from the program. The Wings Program employs a multi-disciplinary team, comprised of a Team Leader, Home Visitors, and specialists in sexuaVphysica1 abuse, substance abuse, parent education, and voca- tional counseling. Family advocates and youth representatives round out the teams. All parties collaborate to coordinate activities and behavior management around highly individualized case plans. Skilled mental health professionals assist with treatment programs with support from the Probation Officer. The Home Visitor acts as case manager for non wards of the Court; the Pro- bation Officer acts as case manager for wards of the Court. A Certified Vocational Specialist provides vocational counseling. WINGS girls look to their Home Visitor and Probation Officer to be a coach, mentor, teacher, and most importantly a facilitator for change. The Home Visitor with support from the Team Leader develops two WINGS service plans. One is a family service plan delineating the presenting family issues, family strengths and appropriate program goals. The second plan is an Individual Girl Plan which outlines and delineates the issues specific to the girl’s needs, strengths and interests. WINGS Home Visitors provide up-to-date information on available community services and facilitate access to resources that address employment, housing, educational, medical and mental health needs. There is an expectation that families will work as partners in this process and not merely as passive recipients. The focus is to build self-sufficiency, empowerment, self-reliance, and ultimately, competency. WINGS interventions include the Cook County Gender-Responsive Needs assessment for girls; substance abuse counseling; mental health services, sexual abuse therapy, vocational counseling, IV- 1 3 County of San Diego girls only groups, mother-daughter mediation, mentoring, parenting classes, cultural outings, recreation, sports leagues, academic enhancement, leadership training, values clarification, nutrition and body image counseling. WINGS staff routinely meet with the minors to provide family focused services and initiate movement toward self-reliance and self-sufficiency in a gradual and educated manner. The fore- most need identified for this target population is to offer a safe environment, which provides indi- vidual attention, positive interactions and safety from abuse and victimization. Program delivery is geared toward culturally responsive, relationship centered, developmentally appropriate interventions, which target adolescent girls. Approximately 2000 girls are referred to San Diego County Juvenile Probation each year. Pro- grams that effectively meet the needs of this at-risk population have been in such short supply that in 1997 and again in 1999, San Diego’s Local Action Plan identified girls programming and ser- vices as the critical gaps for intervention, treatment and incarceration. As more girls enter the juvenile justice system, attention is beginning to be paid to developing programming to meet their needs. It is necessary to expressly educate and train staff who can identify and resolve potential problems with these youth. Partners WINGS works in partnership with three community-based agencies providing services in four regions of San Diego County. Each contractor works in collaboration with their local service providers, with specific expertise in providing gender responsive services to girls in the program. South Bay Community Services provides the services in the southern portion of San Diego County; Home Start provides services in Central and East County; the Escondido Youth Encoun- ter provides services to North Coastal and North Inland San Diego County. These contractors were selected through competitive bid process and chosen because they had long standing part- nerships with existing resources in their communities and connections to other service delivery networks that allowed them to provide culturally competent, developmentally appropriate services to girls. Subcontracts, and Memorandums of Agreementmnderstanding are in place. Information Sharing WINGS data are collected in a Management Information System (MIS) that is shared with part- nering agencies, including local schools, community based organizations, mental health clinicians and members of the Juvenile Justice System. This MIS was designed specifically for WINGS based upon the existing CALSAHF MIS that has been collecting data from more than 20 sites throughout the state for many years without any problems. Weekly and monthly meetings are conducted with members of the Wings collaborative network. In addition, regular updates of program activities are shared with the Juvenile Justice Coordinat- ing Council, the Juvenile Justice Commission and the County Board of Supervisors. Semi-annual and Annual reports are provided to the Board of Corrections. IV- 14 (This page revised May 2001) Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Demonstrated Effectiveness According to Dr. Stephanie Covington and Dr. Barbara Bloom, nationally known experts in the field of gender responsive services, a need exists for gender specific programs to address issues of adolescent girls in the juvenile justice system. Dr. Leslie Acoca, Director of Women’s and Girl’s Institute for the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, notes that understanding girl’s aca- demic and developmental needs, victimization issues, substance abuse and mental health issues, and providing in-home services to girls and their families are effective strategies in addressing the needs of this population. Research conducted by Karol Kumpfer, Office of Substance Abuse Prevention Director, notes that family-based programs are effective in reducing juvenile drug use, delinquency, school fail- ure, and teen pregnancy (OSAP: Juvenile Justice, 1998a). An assessment of gender-specific programs for female delinquents reveals that successful programs share key elements that boost girls’ confidence and skills during adolescence, allows them to get their development back on track if it has been interrupted or delayed, and prepares them for a positive transition to woman- hood (OJJDP, 1998). The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council proposed a girls only program based on the success of California Safe and Healthy Families Model Program (Carrilio, 1998). This platform has proven to be effective at the prevention and alternatives to incarceration ends of the sanctions continuum (California Office of Child Abuse Prevention, 1998; Henggeler). The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division is currently conducting a four-year outcomes evaluation based upon a true experimental model. Randomizing began in April 2000. The average length of the program is nine months. Few girls have completed as of December 2000, so no data is available yet. The final results of the evaluation will be published in 2004. Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) True Findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successful completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup will be used to measure participants’ resiliency at the initial and six-month assessments. Finally, the number of juvenile female petitions for a new criminal offense filed in Juvenile Court will be calculated as a percentage of the juvenile female population in San Diego County for five years ending in ’fiscal year 2001/02. The current statushaseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be estab- lished by July 1,200 1, using the current WINGS control group for the comparison. Outcomes for program participants will only be measured during the 16-month period March 1,2001 through June 30, 2002. It is expected that CPA 2000 group will do significantly better than the comparison group on these outcomes. The Checkup will be administered on CPA 2000 girls at the initial and six-month assessments. It is expected that CPA 2000 girls’ resiliency scores in the areas of Education and Substance Abuse will increase significantly at six months compared to scores at initial assessment. IV- 1 5 County of San Diego Since the WINGS’ primary goal is to prevent and reduce juvenile females from entering or continuing in the juvenile justice system, it is hoped that the rate of juvenile female petitions filed in Juvenile Court for a new criminal offense will be lower in fiscal year 2001/02 compared to the previous four fiscal years. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA Cost: $370,800 CostlClient: $61 8 Total Program Cost: $2,8455 1 1 CostlClient: $4,743 WINGS is an existing Challenge Grant program, funded through June 2002. CPA funds will be used to augment the existing program effective March 1 , 2001. Implementation Schedulesflime Frames Staff will be recruited, hired and trained commencing February 15,200 1 , and the augmented program will become fully operationalized in March 2001. ’ Challenge Grant I: Community Assessment Team Prevention Program Program Objective The Community Assessment Team (CATs) Program is an existing Challenge Grant I prevention program, the prevention component of the Breaking Cycles Demonstration Project. CPA 2000 funds will be used to augment the CATs program from July 1 , 2001 through June 30,2002. This augmentation will double the number of eligible families served (from 1500 to 3200) and fill gaps in services identified in the Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP). Target Population Up to 3,200 eligible at-risk youth and their families residing .in San Diego County. Program Description CATs provide assessment, prevention and intervention services to identified at-risk youth and families throughout the county to prevent their entry into the juvenile justice system. Home-based at five locations throughout the county, mobile CAT teams provide in-home, strength-based assessments, interventions, referrals and case management services for eligible families. IV-16 (This page revised May 2001) Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Youth are primarily referred to the program by schools, law enforcement, community-based agencies, and self-referral. Almost half of those referred to the program are non-responsive to multiple efforts to contact them. However, the other half are responsive and receive a strength- based assessment conducted by a multi-disciplinary team consisting of a Probation Officer and Community Family Advocates with expertise in areas ranging from substance abuse, violence prevention, victimization and abuse, to mental health issues. Prevention and low level interven- tion services are provided by the contracted community agencies to address anger management, violence, alcohol and drug use, gang involvement, school failure and other antisocial behaviors. Approximately three-quarters of the eligible CAT families are referred for outside services, pri- marily counseling, parent training, after school programs, family conferencing, and mentoring. Follow-up is conducted by the CAT team after an appropriate period of time to ensure the families received the services they needed and that the presenting issue has been resolved. CPA 2000 hnding will augment current contracts to expand the target population and enhance the existing CAT core services in the areas of parenting, mentoring, substance abuse treatment, men- tal health, competency, and positive peer influence. During the development phase prior to full implementation on July 1 , 2001 , the CATs will work together with their local collaboratives and service networks to identify and develop appropriate services to fill the identified gaps in each region. While developing the CMJJP, there were gaps in services identified for the low- to medium-risk youth on probation, specifically, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, parenting and mentoring. The target population expansion for CATs will include low- to medium-risk probation youth who could benefit from CAT services. Youth at-risk of entering the juvenile justice system are also targeted for the expansion. Partners The backbone of this project is the community-based organizations in each region that have par- ticipated in the development and implementation of this prevention program since the design phase. These agencies and the local community service networks they have developed are fully committed to helping the youth in this project, developing collaboratives, developing resources, and working as a team with Probation to provide the best services possible for this population. Each CAT has developed individualized services specific to their regions and their clientele. The current contractors for this project are Social Advocates for Youth, San Diego, San Diego Youth and Community Services, South Bay Community Services, the Escondido Youth Encoun- ter, Lifeline, and San Diego Association of Governments. These existing contracts will be aug- mented to expand the program to serve 3200 at risk youth and families with a focus on the gaps in the CMJJP that include parenting, mentoring, substance abuse and mental health treatment, competency, and positive peer influence/gang prevention. These agencies are proven in the community, know the CAT program operations and share a commitment to its success. The contractors will hire and train the additional staff in conjunction with Probation staff. County of San Diego Information Sharing All of the CAT teams have been reporting outcomes using an Access database since 1998. The CATs will continue to collect and report data on standardized forms. Analysis of the data will continue to be performed by an outside evaluator, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division. CPA hnds will be budgeted to enhance and continue this process. Program staff meet every two weeks to ensure that data is collected properly and that the program is implemented consistently at all sites in the County. The results of the SANDAG evaluation are compiled semi-annually in a report to the Board of Corrections as required by Challenge Grant I. Evaluation results are also shared at meetings of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the County Board of Supervisors. The JJCC con- tinues to provide project oversight of the CATs and other innovative programs involving county government, law enforcement, the courts and community-based organizations. Demonstrated Effectiveness The model for the CATs was developed based on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offend- ers in America’s Communities. The Probation Department and its partners from the private sector collaborated on the project design, based it upon current, state-of-the art Community Assessment Centers located in Florida and Arizona, and customized it to meet San Diego’s needs. The initial program design piloted a multi-agency community assessment process at two locations in the County. San Diego’s CAT program design and early outcomes from community assess- ment centers located in Florida and Arizona inspired subsequent legislation sponsored by Senator Dede Alpert. SB 1050 provided an additional $2 million to expand the program from two sites to five and to purchase direct services for the families based upon their assessed needs. Current program finding comes from multiple sources including the expiring Challenge Grant I, Proposition 10 Tobacco Funds, the California Endowment, and County general funds. This Challenge Grant I prevention program is currently being evaluated by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division using a quasi- experimental research design. The ongoing research indicates that 99% of eligible youth receiving services do not enter the juvenile justice system within six months after program completion. Outcome analysis for the current comparison group has not been completed as SANDAG continues to collect data on the control group. The final report will be published in October 2002. Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of: 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) true findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successful completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, the San Diego Regional Resiliency IV-18 (This page revised May 2001) Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Checkup will be used to measure participants’ resiliency upon entry and at exit or six months in the program. Few youth are expected to have positive results for outcomes one through five since this is a pre- vention program targeting at-risk youth. However, the current statushaseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be established by July 1,200 1 , using the current control group of Counsel and Close cases as a comparison. Outcomes for program participants will only be measured during the 12-month period July 1,2001 through June 30,2002. It is expected that the CPA 2000 youth will do better than the comparison group with regard to arrests. The Checkup will be administered on CPA 2000 youth upon entry and exit from the program. It is expected that 70% of the CPA 2000 youths’ resiliency scores will be higher at exit or six months in the program than at initial assessment. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA Cost: $3,622,760 CostKlient: $1,132 Total Program Cost: $5,404,360 CostlClient: $1,689 CATS is an existing program currently funded by Challenge Grant I (expires 6/30/01), a required match, the California Endowment and an overmatch (County General Fund). CPA 2000 hnds will augment the existing program with additional contract services will begin being spent on April 1 , 200 1. CPA 2000 funds that replace the expiring grant funds will begin being spent on July 1,2001. Implementation Schedulesflime Frames Existing contracts will be amended during February and March 2001. Staff will be hired commencing April 1 , 200 1. Training will occur during the month of June, and the augmented program will be fully operationalized by July 1 , 200 1. Community Youth Collaborative Prevention Program Program Objective The Community Youth Collaborative Program is an existing program with grant funds expiring March 30, 2001. This prevention program is designed to build positive peer influences in identi- fied high-risk communities in the county. The five program sites include the Mira Mesa Epicen- ter, the Mesa Margarita Youth Delinquency Prevention Program in Oceanside, the Recreation, Education, Athletic, Culture & Healthy Living (R.E.A.C.H.) Program in Spring Valley, the Linda Vista Leaders Program and the National City Community Capacity Building Program. IV- 1 9 County of San Diego Target Population 940 at-risk youth and families at the five sites. Program Description The five sites of the Community Youth Collaborative Program are teen drop-in centers. Youth are recruited by referrals from schools, advertising in middle and high school newspapers, pam- phlets, brochures, handouts, announcements/presentations at assemblies, and word-of-mouth. Youth are engaged in supervised activities with positive role models in a safe environment. Activities are tailored to meet the needs of the specific communities. The individual sites repre- sent an ongoing resource to youth encouraging positive behavior that offers an alternative to gangs, crime, truancy and street drugs. Designed to meet the needs of at-risk youth, this program will ensure the welfare of the minors as well as enhance public safety. Program staff will enhance youths’ school commitment through academic assistance and training activities. Youth will participate in activities such as tutoring, computer training, entrepreneur- ship classes, and school advocacy. Those youth participating in the program will have increased involvement in positive peer influ- ence through neighborhood-based centers offering a range of positive activities as alternatives to delinquent behavior. Youth will participate in neighborhood-based programs such as life skills groups, mentoring, arts, and leadership training, drug and alcohol awareness projects where positive attitudes, healthy beliefs and clear standards are the norm. Youth participating will increase their attachment to communities and neighborhoods by creating opportunities for self-advocacy and productive involvement in the community at large. Youth will participate in their communities through activities such as service organizations, community service projects and integrated family activities. Mira Mesa Epicenter is a teen center providing positive peer influence, Twister Caf6, and the Music Industry Institute, Information Technologies, Youth2Youth Hotline and a community service program. The Mesa Margarita Youth Delinquency Prevention Program is an Oceanside drop-in youth center for after school activities-a safe haven and alternative to gang membership. The center provides educatiodacademic enhancement, substance abuse education, positive adult role models and youth activities. Recreation, Education, Athletic, Culture, and Healthy Living (R.E.A.C.H.) in north Spring Valley, is a teen center for after school activities for youth. R.E.A.C.H. provides role models based on ‘positive youth constructs.’ The center encourages community attachment, competency, self- efficacy, pro-social norms, bonding, positive identity development and community service. Iv-20 (This page revised May 2001) Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Linda Vista Leaders is a school-based (Montgomery Middle and Keamey Senior High School), year-round program that trains youth in conflict resolution, anger management, problem solving, public speaking, goal setting and fine arts. National City Community Capacity Building provides leadership and mentoring training, after school program at a middle school, and family managementhkills building training and education at Family Resource Centers and schools. Partners The Community Youth Collaborative Program represents collaboration on four levels. First, the programs in each community collaborate with agencies, organizations, community members and other partners in their local areas. Next, the five programs are collaborating with each other to provide a broad spectrum of community-appropriate prevention services countywide. The third level of collaboration is on a regional basis with representation, participation and partnerships with San Diego County Probation, San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Healthy Start Collaborative, Commission on Children Youth and Families, Partners for Healthy Neighborhoods collaborative, Six to Six (After School Programs), Critical Hours (After School Programs), San Diego County Office of Education, and school districts. The fourth and most important collaboration is with our youth. They are full partners in their development as community participants. Each site has succeeded in connecting the domains of Family, Community, and School by providing services and resources that support the ‘positive youth development constructs’ recognized as critical to effective prevention and intervention efforts. Positive Youth Development Constructs identified by the research cited above are: Competencies infive areas, including Social, Emotional, Cognitive, Behavioral, and Moral; as well as self-determination; Spirituality; Self-Efficacy; Positive Identity; Belief in the Future; Recognition for Positive Behavior; Opportunities for Pro- Social Involvement; and Pro-Social Norms. Information Sharing All of the programs have been reporting on the same forms for the three-year term of the Title-V hnding. Collecting, analyzing and reporting data on standardized forms in compliance with OCJP requirements is currently being performed. As a collaborative, money will be set aside for the lead agency to enhance and continue this process. Formal written agreements with collabo- rating agencies, contracts and Memorandums of Agreement currently exist between the partners. Information and data collection will be shared at meetings with the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the County Board of Supervisors. In addition, semi-annual reports will be provided to the Board of Corrections. Demonstrated Effectiveness The five Community Youth Collaborative sites were originally funded by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Title-V Delinquency Prevention grant. The Title V programs offered services based on the risk and protective factors established in the Communities That Care Model. The IV-2 1 County of San Diego Communities That Cure Model defines risk and protective factors as the characteristics of school, community, family environments, and individual traits that are reliable predictors of a juvenile’s level of participation in drug use, delinquency, and gang involvement (Hawkins, Catalano and Miller, 1992). Research-based programs for young children with conduct disorders-providing parenting training for parents and/or social competency for the children themselves-substantially reduce behavior problems in 70 to 90 percent of cases. Several school-based and community-based prevention strategies have also demonstrated power to reduce delinquent behavior. (Mendel, R., Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works-and What Doesn’t, American Youth Policy Forum, p.4) The link between risk and protective factors and problematic youth development is being researched and documented through the Positive Youth Development Project. This is a two-year evaluation of positive intervention efforts in 77 different youth programs throughout the United States (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins, 1998). Outcomes from this research are not expected until 2001. To the students, families, school staff and administrators, collaborative service providers and program staff who interact through these programs, the effectiveness of the Title-V Community Youth Collaborative is self-evident. These five Delinquency Preventionhtervention programs have established a hard-won sense of place and purpose, which the communities at each site have embraced as their own. The increasing demand for additional programs and increasingly diverse range of participants (both program enrollees and service providers) demonstrates each site’s relevance to the population it serves. Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) True Findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successll completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, a survey will be administered to the participants four times over the course of the project to reveal a profile of the participants’ ethnicity, grade in school, perception of how they are doing in school and whether they have any meaningful peer/adult relationships. It will also indicate why they participate in the program, what they like best about the program, and ask for their input about how the program should be improved. It is expected that few youth will have positive results for outcomes one through five since this is a prevention program. However, the current statushaseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be established by July 1 , 200 1 , using a sample of youth currently in the program as a comparison. Outcomes for program participants will only be measured during the 15-month period April 1,2001 through June 30,2002. It is expected that CPA 2000 youth will achieve outcomes similar to those for the comparison group. In addition, the evaluator will attempt to correlate any findings garnered from the survey and compare them to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) report, a Process Evaluation ofEight Title V Iv-22 (This page revised May 2001) Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Community Delinquency Prevention Projects, published in April 2001 by OCJP’s Program Evaluation Branch. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA/Total Program Cost: $750,000 CostKlient: $798 Implementation ScheduledTime Frames: CPA hds will replace grant hnds that expire on March 31,2001. Existing contracts will be amended during March, and CPA fhds will commence effective April 1,2001. Because the Title-V Delinquency Prevention Project sites are now in their third year of operation, they represent an opportunity to continue proven practices and collaborative partnerships, without interruption and without start-up or implementation barriers, to communities representing each Supervisorial District and several HHSA regions. Truancy Suppression Project Program Objective The Truancy Suppression Program (TSP) is an expansion of a currently existing proven program. In the current Truancy Intervention Program (TIP), deputy probation officers are assigned to 8 school districts to provide prevention and early intervention services. These officers currently provide management services for approximately 60 - 601 wards of the Court. CPA 2000 funds will be used to augment the current program by adding Deputy and Correctional Deputy Proba- tion Officers to provide intensive supervision and case management services for 300 - 601 wards of the Court effective July 1,200 1. The Probation Officers will work in tandem with the District Attorney’s Office, Juvenile Court and the County Office of Education in the recently established Truancy Court and Truancy Court Schools Programs, part of the existing continuum of truancy prevention services in San Diego County. Target Population Up to 300 - 601 wards residing throughout the County with truancy problems. Many of these youth will be enrolled in one of three Juvenile Court Truancy Schools operated by the County Office of Education. Program Description IV-23 (This page revised May 2001) County of San Diego The Truancy Suppression Program will complete the existing continuum of services developed to combat minors that have truancy issues. The CPA 2000 funds will enhance the continuum of care by providing intervention, treatment, supervision, and suppression to 601 wards and their families effective July 1 , 200 1. TSP Probation Officers will provide intensive probation supervision, make referrals for truancy prevention and academic enhancement services, and assist in monitoring the juvenile’s atterdance through direct contact with the truant juvenile and hidher family. In addition, TSP Probation Officers will conduct in-service training and support groups, provide crisis intervention, sit on various multi-disciplinary teams, work with collaborative partners and administer alcohol and drug assessments. TSP Correctional Deputy Probation Officers will be mobile in the community, making home visits and transporting minors to school as needed. The current TIP Probation Officers will continue to provide prevention and early intervention services for the school districts. Case management services that they were providing will be re-assigned to the TSP Probation Offkers upon program implementation July 1 , 2000. Partners TSP is a collaborative program that integrates existing community resources with this program. The partnership includes the Juvenile Court, Probation Department, District Attorney’s BRITE Families program, County Office of Education, various school districts and their School Atten- dance Review Boards (SARB) targeting youth with truancy issues. The Truancy Intervention Program will continue to provide early intervention and prevention services on school campuses to assist habitually truant youth and their families. The District Attorney’s Office will continue to provide mediation through the BRITE Families program. TSP will provide better service to the Courts, as the youth will be held directly accountable by the Truancy Court and Truancy Court Schools (Vista, Ruben H. Fleet, and South Bay). Information Sharing The Juvenile Court issued a standing TNG order (case law) that enables system partners to share information on an as-needed basis. Agencies that share information across systems now include Probation, schools, community based organizations, mental health system, and law enforcement agencies. Information sharing and data collection are currently available through automated sys- tems including the Regional Juvenile Information System (REJIS), School Information System (SIS), and Juvenile Case Management System (JCMS). School release forms and case manage- ment information is shared at multi-disciplinary team meetings with staff from partner agencies. Semi-annual reports will be provided to the Board of Supervisors and annual reports will be submitted to the Board of Corrections. In addition, routine updates will be shared with the Juvenile Justice Commission and the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Demonstrated Effectiveness Truancy is one of the first signs that a student is in trouble (Spaethe, Rachel, ‘Survey of School Truancy Intervention and Prevention Strategies,’ Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2000). IV-24 Comprehensive Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan Combining community resources and focusing on prevention and intervention strategies will reduce the number of truant students in San Diego County and reduce delinquency among habitually truant students. Addressing truancy issues through a continuum of care will reduce overall juvenile crime rates. Research shows that school absenteeism is a growing problem in the United States. Literature examining truancy indicates, ‘seventy-five percent of all juvenile offenders have been truant from school’ (Fritz, John C., ‘Johnson County District Attorney’s Office, Important Information About Truancy Laws,’ 1999). Truancy is related to delinquent and criminal activity; it is a ‘powefil predictor of delinquent behavior. ’ (United Community Services of Johnson County, Inc. Focus on Prevention and Early Intervention, 1999). Studies indicate that students who skip school are more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime (Spaethe, Rachel, ‘Survey of School Truancy Intervention and Prevention Strategies,’Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2000). While compulsory education laws vary from state to state, truancy is a national problem requiring national attention and truancy intervention initiatives. Responses must include the entire commu- nity such as parents, educators, law enforcement personnel, juvenile and family court judges, and representatives from the social service community and religious organizations. (Manual to Com- bat Truancy, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; U..S Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs (1996), micro- formed on ERIC database, Fiche ED 397526 (Educational Resource Information Center). Research confirms that the middle school period is the most crucial for determining whether a student will remain in the educational system and graduate from high school. Although research demonstrates this concept, few schools meet the needs of this age group (Spaethe, Rachel, ‘Survey of School Truancy Intervention and Prevention Strategies,’ Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2000). Prevention researchers consistently find that school-based programs can produce sustained behavior changes when they are carehlly implemented, developmentally appropriate, sustained over time and focused at least in part on building social competence. Several school-based pre- vention strategies have demonstrated the power to reduce either delinquency or known precursors to delinquency, such as substance abuse and anti-social behavior. (Mendel, R., Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works-and What Doesn’t, American Youth Policy Forum, p.25) TSP is expected to have similar results to the Truancy Intervention Program (TIP). TIP, estab- lished in 1988 and implemented in eight school districts in San Diego County, has been effective in reducing truancy and delinquency. 98.2% of referrals to TIP received no new 601 petitions after TIP intervention, and 99.3% of minors referred to TIP received no new 602 petitions after TIP intervention. Outcomes Outcomes for minors served by this program will be measured by rates of: 1) arrest for a new criminal offense; 2) true findings on a new criminal offense; 3) new institutional commitment for a new criminal offense; 4) successful completion of probation, restitution, and court-ordered IV-25 County of San Diego community service; and 5) violation of probation. In addition, continued truancy will be measured by new true finding on a 601 petition for truancy. Few youth should have positive results for outcomes one through five since this is a prevention program targeting truants. However, the current statushaseline rates and target goals for outcomes one through five will be established by July 1 , 2001, using a comparable group of current 601 truancy wards. Outcomes for program participants will only be measured during the 12-month period July 1,2001 through June 30,2002. It is expected that CPA 2000 youth will do as well as or better than the current 601 truancy wards on these outcomes. All CPA 2000 participants will enter the program because of 601 wardship resulting from prior truancy problems that could not be solved at the school level. It is expected that 98% of the par- ticipants will not receive a True Finding on a new 601 petition for truancy during the program. In addition, it is expected that 99% of the participants will not receive a true finding on a 602 petition for a new criminal offense. Finally, program costs and minors served will be tracked in order to establish the annual per capita cost of the program. Program Costs CPA Cost: $750,000 CosKlient: $2,500 Total Project Cost: $1 , 134,000 CostKlient: $3,780 Implementation Schedulesflime Frames CPA funds will augment an existing program. Staff will be hired commencing April 1,2001. Training will occur during the month of June, and the augmented program will be fully operationalized by July 1 , 200 1. IV- 26 APPENDIX SECTION APPENDIX A PRIORITIZED LIST OF FUNDED PROGRAMS County of San Diego Crime Prevention Act of 2000 Prioritized List of Proposed Programs Prlority Breaking Cycles # Clients CPA Funds Total Project Costs Expiring Grant Funds County Funds - Match County Funds - Overmatch CPA Augmentation Funds Anticipated Earned Interest. 1,933,524 160,000 777,591 819,859 1,933,524 160,000 765,348 777,591 819.859 CPA Augmentation Request 1,597;450 Total Project Cost 3,690,974 4,456,322 Cost per Client 1200 3,076 3,714 Juvenile Drug Court Expiring Grant Funds 267,220 267,220 County Funds - Match 18,000 County Funds - Overmatch 360,000 Augmentation Request 1,229,846 1,229,846 Total Project Cost 1,497,066 1,875,066 Cost per Client 160 9,357 11,719 Repeat Offender Prevention Project Grant Funds thru 6/2002 County Funds - Match County Funds - Overmatch 453,208 292.524 Augmentation Request 423,400 423,400 Total Project Cost 423,400 1,169.132 Cost per Client 03 5,101 14,086 Working to Insure and Nurture Girls Success Grant Funds thru 6/2003 1,776,331 County Funds - Match 105,436 CBO - Match 592,944 Augmentation Request 370,800 370,800 Total Project Cost 370,800 2,84531 1 Cost per Client 600 618 4,743 Community Assessment Teams Grant Funds thru 6/2002 400,851 Augmentation Request 3,622,760 3,622,760 Other - County General Fund 1,380,749 Total Project Cost 3,622,760 5,404,360 Cost per Client 3200 1,132 1,689 Community Youth Collaborative Program - Expiring Grant Funds 750,000 750,000 Total Project Cost 750,000 750,000 Cost per Client 940 798 798 Truancy Supervision Project County Funds 384.000 Augmentation Request 750,000 750;OOO Total Project Cost 750,000 1,134,000 Cost per Client 300 2,500 3,780 CPA ALLOCATION *ANTICIPATED EARNED INTEREST TOTAL 10,285,141 819,859 11,105,000 17,634,444 APPENDIX B SAN DIEGO REGIONAL RESILIENCY CHECKUP ME 7/16/99 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL RESILIENCY JCHECKUP APP i YrnNMMMN) Ford, Henry J. 11 1 Blossom Ave. Leander High Schd Family and child are not receiving any services at this time. NlCKNAME WB AGE GENDER M 17 303-5~~8a USA 80301 co Denver ALT. PHONE lspEaM COUNTRY ZIP STATE Crpl REslDENcE(slRE€ll 303-444-7458 811 3/81 HOMEPHONE ScHoOL GRAE PmRpRmRDEsCuBLE PRIMARY WAGE EWNICTTr 12 White rJYm ~cJu?EfAKEf7 English WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE FOR YOu7HIFAMILY? REFERRALSolJFq RSERFiALPHONE Mark Schnelder PARENTGUARDIAN PHONE 303-444-7844 PARP(TIOUARDIAN John Ford 544-488-4122 PERsoNcoMpLmNGMIs~ 1 NAME Mike Parson TITLE Professional AGW PHONE 303"9876 I I PROTECTIVE FACTORS REQUIRED SOME I rEE:SKN€ PEER RELATIONS YES WHAT NO UNK oamo I 4 HAS ATWST ONE PERSON ea .... .... __ ." ...... ..... /. ././/, . ../ ... i ...... ........ :,: /... // ... .. .::... " .. .: : : : ... ~ ..... : ............ .: :: ........ : . : . :. .. :. "..: .... .?. ....................... ? ......... ......................... :. .:::. .: EDUCATION YES SOME WHAT NO 7 SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT/ 00aYii 8 ATTACHMENTS W/ACADEMIC 0 81 BONDS ACHIEVER SUBSTANCE USE YES SOME WHAT No 11 PAR€NTS MODEL HEALTHY one3 MODERATION I 12 EFFECT/VELYMANAG€SP€€R 0 0 0 ' PRESSURE I SUBSTANCEUSEPROTECTlYESUBSCALESCORE 2 TOM Protective score (20) SPECIAL CULTURAL, HEALTH. RELATED, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OR COMMENTS: - TEST CASE PRINT-OUT UTILIZING THE SOFTWARE PACWGE- DATE 1D NUMBER 711 W99 YOUMNAMENFIM) 00001 Ford, Henry J. APPENDIXB RISK FACTORS PEER YES MT M3 UNK nom0 SOME 36 SOCIALLY ISOLATED ooso 37 VERY FEW PROSOCIAL ACQUAINTANCES HAS GANG AFFlLlATlON/ASSOClATION os00 38 HAS DELINQUENT FRIENDS soon NOMEANINGFULRELATIONSHIP 0 n en 0 WITH ANY ADULT EDUCATION 46 POOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 47 PATTERN OF TRUANCY DURING THE PAST YEAR 48 PATTERN OF SUSPENSIONIU(PELLED 48 DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOMISCHOOL 5o PRESENTLY NOT IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM EDUcAl 56 PATTERN OF ALCOHOL USE omno 57 USEDMOODALTERING SUBST. 0 (OTHER THAN ALCOHOL) 58 USES SUBSTANCES FREQUENTLY 59 WITH DAILY FUNCTIONING SUBSTANCEUSE INTERFERES ~p 0 0 EARLYONSETSUBSTANCE USE 0 0 p11 suBsTANcEUsERlsKsuBscALEscoRE 4 (<I 3) TOTAL (Resiliency) PROFILE = El 12mm APPENDIXB s V CI f APPENDIX C SAN DIEGO COUNTY CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH & WELLDBEING REPORT CARD 2000 APPENDIX c Child and Family Health & Well-Being Report Card 2000 Summary Table I Annual Comparisons (other annual data avail: Economic Security Percent unemployed Percent of children and youth living in Poverty Rate of children and youth receiving CalWORk assistance (per 1,000) Rate of chlldren and youth in families Identified as homeless* (per 100,000) Good Health Percent 6f babies with low birthwelght Rate of teen births (per 1,000 ages Percent of youth who attempted 15-17) suiade in prior year (reported by 9 Percents of youth substance use in last 30 days (reported by 9-12"' graders) - cigarette use - alcohol binge drinking - marijuana use Appropriate Access to Services Number of publicly funded subsidized child care spaces adequately immunized (ages 19 up to 36 months)** Percent of children and youth with heah insurance (ages 0-18) A Safe Environment I Rate of substantiated cases of chiid abuse/neglect (per 1,000) Rate' of domestic violence reports (per 1,000 households) Rate of court cases filed against youth offenders (per 1,000 ages 10-17) hlldrem and Youth are aaes 0-17 unless othetwlse I 12* graders) D Percent of young children who are le in tl 1995 6.4 22.7 - - 193.3" - - 5.6 37.7 10,o 23.8 23.9 26.5 - - 68.9- 75 - 23.1 d. 1996 5.3 - 185.7 - - 5.8 36.9 - - 73.6- 78 - - 27.6 22.5 - & 1997 4.2 23.5 - 168.7 - - 5.8 30.9 9.5 24.2 27.1 26.4 - - 79.6- 80.0 - 25.0 23.5 - rt) 1998 3.5 21.6 - 1393 - 7 6.0 29.0 - - 17,970 77.1- 79.5 - 19.3 21.3 23.3 - 1999 3.1 - 112.1 29.1 - - 9.2 23.1 22.3 22.2 - - 76.6- 87.0 - - 19.3 20.6 20.6 - 2000 - 27.4 'Thin is defined &re as those ages 0-17 in familles living in emergency shelters, uslng hotelhotel vouchers or being xse managed and not Rndlng shelter on one day In the winter months. Wntet deflned M November, December. January and Febwry wunta averaged. "Range from 2 different data sources. "'Average for 19952000, averaged from 3 different data sources. A Safe Environment, cont. Rates of violent crime victimization of children and of youth (per 10,000) - ages 0-11 - ages 12-17 0 Rates of unintentional fnjurles and unintentional injury deaths In children and vouth (Per mwoo) overall due to alcohol/diug-related motor vehicle crashes -ages 0-15 - ages 1620 Educational Achievement Percent of high school shrdenk who bopout annually (grades 9-12) 0 Percent d students attending xhool per day (K-12) Percents of pubhi school studenk taking the Stanford-9 reading test who score at or above the Soh percentile - grade 3 - grade 8 -grade 11 0 Percent of publk school seniors who have taken the SAT (college entrance test) Nildm and Youth are ages 0-17 unless omelwlx I - 1995 - 387.6 - - 4.0' 93sa 12.8 - d. - 1996 - 354.4 20.3 201.6 - - 3.0" 93.4" 44.1 - - 1997 - 3.7 46.9 352.6 18.6 188.7 - - 2.9' 93.7" 43.3 - 1998 1999 44.7 41.0 347.2 19.9 188.3 2.7 2.4' 93.9" 94.5' 45 50 52 41 43.8 54 41 43.5 APPENDIXC The Child and Family Health & Well-Being Report Card 2000 Summary Table 11 Comparisons of the County, the State and the Nation MEASURE San Diego California US Year of County Data Economic Security Percent unemployed I 3.1% I 5.2% I 4.2 I 1999 . Percent of children and youth living in Pew 21.6% 24.3% 18.9% 1998 Rate of children and youth receiving CalWORKs assistance NA Fy 98/99 112.2 per 139.1 per 1,000 1,000 m Rate of children and youth in families identified as homeless* 27.4 per 100,000 NA NA winter 99/00 Good Health Percent of babies with low birthweight 6.0 6.2 = Rate of teen births (ages 15-17) 29.0 per = Percent of youth who attempted 1,OOo suicide in the prior year (reported by 9*-12'" graders) 9.2% the last 30 days (reported by 9"- 12" graden) - cigarette use 23.1% - alcohol binge drinking 22.3% - marijuana use 22.2% . Percents of youth substance use in 32.6 per 1,000 Appropriate Access to Services . Number of publicly funded Percent of young children who are subsidized child care spaces 17,970 NA adequately Immunized (ages 19 up 76.&87.0% to 36 months) . Percent of children and youth with health insurance (ages 0-18) 83% NoteKhildren and Youth are ages 0-17 unless otherwise noted. 78.3% 79% (1998) 7.6 I 1998 8.3% 1 1999 I 34.8% 3 1.5% 26.7% 1 lgg9 NA 1 1998 79.9% I 1999 85% 1995- -is is identified here as th& ages 0-17 in families living in emergency shelters, using hotel/motel vouchers or being case managed and not Rnding shelter on one day in the winter months. A Safe Environment abusefneglect . Rate of substantiated cases of child . Rate of domestic violence reports - Rate of court cases filed against youth offenders (ages 10-17) Rates of violent crime vlctimization ' of children and of youth - ages 0-11 - ages 12-17 * Rates of unintentional injuries and unintentional Injury deaths in children and youth -overall due to alcohol/dnrg-related motor vehicle crashes - ages 0-15 - ages16-20 Educational Achievement 19.3 per 1 ,Ooo 20.6per . 1,000 households 20.6 per 1,000 2.4, 41.0, boaper 10,000 347.2 19.9. 188.3, dper 100,000 NA NA NA NA 283.5 20.7, 168.5, all per 100,000 NA NA NA NA NA 1999 1999 1999 1999 1998 Percentof high school -&de& who dropout annually 2.4% 2.8% Percent of students attending school per day 94.5% NA . Percents of publk school students taking the Stanford-9 reading test who score at or above the SOm national percentile rank ~~~~ ~ - grade 3 54% 44% - grade 8 56% 49% - grade 11 43% 36% NA NA NA . Percent of public schgol seniors who have taken the SAT (college 43.5% 36.5% NA entrance test) Note: Children and Youths are ages 0-17 unless otherwise noted. 98/99 98/99 2000 1999 APPENDIX D CPA 2000 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIAGENCY JUVENILE JUSTICE PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY COUNCIL MEMBERS: County of San Diego: Chief Robbtion officer, Ch.u Chief AdministrUivc officer Commiuion on Children, Youth & Families District Attorney Health & Human Savi- Agmcy: Alcohol & Drug Services Mental Hullh SocidScrviccs Juvenile Justitia Canmhiar Residing Judge’Juvmile Court Public Defender Sheriff Business Childrm’r Initiativ: . Community Based OrganizAtim County W~tia 0fEduUtion Sa mego Police Dcpvtment St& David Simmons. Ducclor Comprcbcruivc Strategy Childrm’r lniti.tive COUNTY OF SAN DlEGO JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNClL September 25,2000 Dear Community Member: The attached questionnairelsurvey is being forwarded to you and others so that the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) can identify current risks and needs for youth at-risk of entering or continuing in the justice system. The survey also requests information about what types of services or programs you think should be added or expanded and are proven to reduce juvenile crime. The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) has formed a Technical Work Group to coordinate an application for funding for juvenile justice programs pursuant to Assembly Bill 1913-the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000. This bill allocates $121 million to counties for juvenile crime and delinquency prevention programs-approximately $1 0 million to San Diego County. Approximately $5 million will be expended to sustain current programs through FY 01/02 (Breaking Cycles; Juvenile Drug Court; Repeat Offender Prevention Program, CATS and WINGS). The balance of the funds is to expandenrich services of effective proven programs. This legislation requires the JJCC to prepare and implement a Comprehensive MUM- agency Juvenile Justice Plan (CMJJP). The Board of Supervisors must approve the CMJJP prior to making application for funds through the Board of Corrections. All services or programs mommended for funding must 0 target youth at risk of .entering or continuing in the justice system address community risk factors, be based on proven programs or approaches that have demonstrated effectiveness 0 have specific outcomes and be able to collectlanalyze data regarding outcomes. Information from the $an Dego County Comprehensive strategy and Local Actim mn will be updated and included in the CMJJP. The timeline for completing our application is very short. We Intend to submit the CMJJP and our proposal for funding to the Board of Corrections in December 2000. Survey instructions are included on the sumy. Your help in completing the survey for the Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan is appreciated. fi LAN M. CROG , CHAIR ‘CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER Attachments 4438 Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA 92109 Phone: 858-490-1670 FAX: 858-490-1676 ~APPENDJX D San Diego County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Your input is important to the children and faxnilies of San Diego County. If you have already completed this survey, please pass this an to.a colleague. Knowledge abut juvenile justice issnes will help you complete the survey. Ofthe $10 million allocated to San Diego County, approximately $5 was earmarked by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to continue and enhance our cment proven pmgmms targeted to reduce the number of youth at risk of entering or continuing m the juvenile justice system. These include the Juvenile Delinquency Drug Comt, Breaking Cycles, the Repeat offender Prevention Project (ROPP), Comnnmity Assessnent Teams and Working to Ensure and Nmture Girls' Success (WINGS). 'Ihe remaining $5 million is intended to fund our highest rankedideatifkdneeds. The results of this survey will identify current risks and needs throughout the county, as well as what types of services or programs should be in place to address these risks and needs. COMPREHENSIVE MULTI-AGENCY JUVENILE JUSTICE PLAN SURVEY A. RISKS: List the three most signiticant risk factors that place youth at risk of entering or continuing m the juvenile justice system. (See Attached Fime 2: Risk Factors for Health and Behavior Problems for examples of risk factors.) (1) B. NEEDS: List the thm most sigdicant services that you think would address the above risk factors. (See Attached Samde List Bf Prevention and Justice Services/Proerams) (1) CHECK ONE CATEGORY THAT BEST REPRESENTS WHO COMPLETED THIS SURVEY [ ]LawlW~cem~Agency [ ICcHnmrmityCollaborative [ 3 CommeBasedOr~tian [ 3 City Government [ ] County Govemment [ ] Education [ ] Hospital/HMO [ 1- [ 1- ARE YOUAYOWH(UNDERAGE18)7 [ ]Yes [ ]No YOURNAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) PLEASE FORWARD COMPLETED SURVEYS BY OCTOBER 6,2000 TO: Sue Spotts, do Probation Department, Mail Stop P-232, PO Box 23597, Sari Diego, CA 92193-3597 OR FAX to Sue 858-514-3222, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU NEED CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT: David Simmons at 858-490-1670, Jane Peterson at 858-514-3203, or Sara Vickers at 858-514-3173. 7" .. .- .. jqQ& 2:2, ... &k ..a ., :Pactors:for ...'~....:.:?.'..:~~, " I. .. ._ , . .. . . . . . ~ . . .. : ,. . > ._ .._ ' .( :'A" . . ... ...:,, ....~,".:.::..l.;,.,;..;; Adolescent Problem Behaviors Risk Factor Availability of Drugs d dg Community Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Erug Use, d d Availability of Frrearms d Firearms, and Crime Media Portrayals of Violence d Transitions and Mobility dd fl Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Organization dfldfld Extreme Economic Deprivation d dd - Family History of the Problem Behavior I4dlddl I Family Management Problems Family Conflict ddgdd d dd Favorable Parental Attitudes and Involvement in the Problem Behavior fldddd Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior Academic Failure Beginning in Elementary School ddddd ddfldV Rebelliousness dddd Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem Behavior ddfldd Friends Who Engage in the,Roblem Behavior d dd Eaily Initiation of the Problem Behavior Constitutional Factors ddddd d dd Source: Catalan0 and Hawkins, Risk Focused Prevention. Using the Social Development Strategy. 1995. Seattle: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. APPENDIX D SAMPLE LIST PREVENTION AND JUSTICE SERVICES/PROGRAMS I A. Victimization Related 1 B. Education I 1. 5. Victim of physical abuse 5. School disciplinary problems 4. Teen relationship violence 4. Academic enhancement 3. Witness to family violence 3. Academic failure 2. Child abuse 2. Truancy 1. Sexual assault/victim of abuse Parenting skills I 6. Recreatiodleisure time activities 7. Prostitution preventiodoutreach 7. Physical educatiodsports 6. Parental neglect I 8. I Runaway shelter/outreach I 8. I Learning disabled 9. 11. Victim of incest 1 1. Family planning 10. Victim of sexual abuse 10. Tutoring 9. Homeless programdoutreach I I 14. I I I 14. I C. Competency Building D. Health Related 1. Alcohol intervention 4. Career development 4. Alcohol prevention & outreach 3. Goals setting 3. Female sexuality/STD 2. Decision-making skills 2. Pregnancy prevention 1. Self-esteem 5. Tobacco intervention 6. Women’s historyhdies 6. Tobacco preventiodoutreach 5. Communication skills 7. Mental health assessment 1 1. Literacy 11. Eating disorders 10. Life skills 10. Physical health assessment 9. Values clarification 9. Other drug interventions 8. Anti-gang programs 8. Drug prevention programdoutreach 7. Mentoring 12. Suicide 13. 13. Depression 12. Independent living skills I I 14. I I I 14. I 1 E. Support Services I F. Other 1. 2. Residential care 2. 1. Transportation I I I I I I 3. I Child care I I 3. I 4. 7. 7. 6. 6. 5. Shelter (temporary) 5. 4. Respite care APPENDIX E EXCERPTS FROM SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CRIME IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION MIDlYEAR 2000 REPORT 0 OOONOOOrOOOOOOOOOOOOmo 00 0 (0 gJ= v 0 CE @al zis 3- e 0 N0000000r000000000r000 00 0 (3 z E X a l- cm1o0m0r~roDt000NrN000cn0l-O r Nl- 00 0 QD (D t Appendix E-3 Number of Status Offense Arrests, by Jurisdiction San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 I999 1995-99 7998-99 Carlsbad 30 11 I1 - " Chula Vista Coronado El Cajon Escondido La Mesa National City Oceanside San Diego , Sheriff - Total San Diego Harbor Police TOTAL 7 0 120 176 40 195 334 2,180 1,002 13 4,109 0 26 172 344 19 163 353 1,939 731 0 3,828 141 66 148 454 20 65 396 2,412 597 6 4,323 " - 23% 158% - -67% 19% 11% -40% - 5% 1 1 6% 85% 1 -56% 32% 50% -29% " 28% NOTE: Variations in law enforcement and prosecution focus and emphasis impact changes in numbers of arrestMuvenile contacts for status offenses SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E4 Number of Arrests, Adult and Juvenile Five California Counties and State of California, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Los Angeles Adult Juvenile Total Orange Adult Juvenile Total San Bernardino Adult Juvenile Total San Diego Adult Juvenile Total Santa Clara Adult . Juvenile Total Statewide Adult Juvenile Total 377,938 55,114 433,052 98,870 17,832 116,702 71,014 14,736 85.750 107,646 19,630 127,276 61,631 14,676 76,307 1,352,949 255,198 1,608,147 362,328 64,730 427,058 88,110 18,702 106,812 66,903 19,257 86,160 95,289 21,508 1 16,797 58,090 13,538 71,628 1,301,765 269,959 1,571,724 325,790 63,537 389,327 88,874 17,755 106,629 64,692 18,327 83,019 92,282 20,810 11 3,092 57,388 1 1,693 69,081 1,238,334 258,125 1,496,459 -14% 15% -1 0% -10% <-1% -9% -9% 24% -3% -1 4% 6% -11% -7% -20% -9% -8% 1% -7% -1 0% -2% -9% 1% -5% <-1% -3% -5% -4% -3% -3% -3% -1 % -14% -4% -5% -4% -5% 1 SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E-5 Arrest Rates Per 1,000 Population Five California Counties and Statewide, 1995,1998, and 1999 K Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-9E El Los Angeles Adult ' Juvenile Total Orange Adult Juvenile Total San Bernardino Adult Juvenile Total San Diego Adult Juvenile Total Santa Clara Adult Juvenile Total State of California Adult Juvenile 56.5 53.1 47.3 52.4 61.5 58.8 55.9 54.2 48.9 51.7 44.6 44.4 63.2 66.3 61.0 53.2 47.3 46.5 66.6 60.0 56.7 66.5 86.9 80.5 66.6 64.5 60.6 54.2 45.5 43.1 73.0 73.9 69.8 56.5 49.0 46.4 51.5 46.1 44.8 83.5 77.1 64.6 55.6 49.9 47.3 58.4 54.1 50.6 67.8 71.7 66.9 -1 6% 12% -1 3% -1 4% -3-% -1 3% -1 5% 21 % -9% -20% -4% -1 8% -1 3% -23% -1 5% -1 3% -1 % -11% -4% -1 0% <-I % -8% -2% -6% -7% -6% -5% -6% -5% -3% -1 6% -5% -6% -7% Total 59.7 56.4 52.8 -12% -6 % SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; State Department of Finance; SANDAG Appendix E-6 Comparison of General Population to Arrestees San Diego Region, 1999 A-TE PoPuATloN GeERAL POPUATION 10-14 J U V E N I L White E S Black Hispanic Other 18-24 _"""""""""""""""" """"""""_ A D 25-29 U L 30-39 T 40and Over S Black Hispanic SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center: SANDAG Appendix E-7 Juvenile Arrests, by Level of Offense and Gender San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Boys Felony Felony Violent Percent Violent Misdemeanor Status Total Girls Felony Felony Violent Percent Violent Misdemeanor Status Total All Juveniles Felony Felony Violent’ Percent Violent Misdemeanor Status 4,873 1,358 28% 7,314 2,644 14,831 954 214 22% 2,380 1,465 4,799 5,827 1,572 27% 9,694 4,109 4,953 1,386 28% 8,774 231 3 16,240 885 216 24% 3,068 1,315 5,268 5,838 1,602 27% 11,842 3,828 4,209 1,221 29% 8,329 2,803 15,341 880 226 26% 3,069 1,520 5,469 5,089 1,447 28% 11,398 4,323 -1 4% -1 0% 1% 14% 6% 3% -8% 6% 4% 29% 4% 14% -1 3% -8% 1% 18% 5% TOTAL 19,630 21,508 20,810 6% ~~ SOURCES: State Deparlment of Justice, Criminal Justice Stafisfics Center; SANDAG -1 5% -1 2% 1% -5% 12% -6% -1 % 5% 2% <I % 16% 4% -1 3% -1 0% 1% -4% 13% -3% Appendix E4 Arrests, by Level of Offense San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Adult Felony Misdemeanor Total Juvenile Felony Misdemeanor Status Total Adult and Juvenile Felony Misdemeanor 35,136 72,510 107,646 5,827 9,694 4,109 19,630 40,963 82,204 29,561 65,728 95,289 5,838 1 1,842 3,828 21,508 35,399 77,570 27,119 65,163 92,282 5,089 11,398 4,323 20,810 32,208 76,561 -23% -8% -1 0% -1 % -1 4% -3% -1 3% -1 3% 18% -4% 5% 13% 6% -3% -21 % -9% -7% -1 % TOTAL 127,276 116,797 113,092 -11% -3% SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E-9 Felony and Misdemeanor Juvenile Arrests, by Type of Offense San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Violent 3,109 3,265 3,049 -2% -7% Property 5,539 5,424 4,589 -17% -1 5% Weapon Offenses 71 9 755 627 -13% -1 7% Drug Law 2,123 1,968 1,807 -15% -8% Violations Other 4,031 6,268 6,415 59% 2% Status 4,109 3,828 4,323 5% 13% TOTAL 19,630 21,508 20,810 6% -3% SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG I Appendix E4 0 Juvenile Arrests for Violence Felony and Misdemeanor San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 199889 Felony Homicide 18 15 3 ” ” Rape 23 22 27 -- I Robbery 645 557 468 -27% -1 6% Aggravated Assault 886 1,008 949 7% -6% Total 1,572 1,602 1,447 -8% -1 0% Misdemeanor Manslaughter/ 1,537 1,663 1,602 4% -4% Assault & Battery TOTAL 3,109 3,265 3,049 -2% -7% SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E4 1 Status Arrests, by Offense San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Truancy 101 237 493 308% 108% Runaway 563 700 544 -3% -22% Curfew 2,793 1 , a75 2,377 -1 5% 27% Incorrigible 82 57 29 - “ Other Status 570 959 880 54% -8 % TOTAL 4,109 3,828 4,323 5% 13% ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics. Center; SANDAG Appendix E-I2 Juvenile Property Arrests San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Felony Burglary 1,744 1,679 1,327 -24% -21 % Larceny 71 3 623 518 -27% -1 7% Motor Vehicle Theft 334 364 353 6% -3% Total 2,791 2,666 2,198 -21% -1 8% Misdemeanor Petty Theft 2,748 2,758 2,391 -13% -1 3% TOTAL 5,539 5,424 4,589 -17% -1 5% SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E-I3 Arrests for VandalismlGraffiti San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 %Change 1995 1998 1999 199589 1998-99 Adult 649 570 489 -25% -1 4% Juvenile 1,049 1,089 935 -1 1% -1 4% TOTAL 1,698 1,659 1,424 -16% -1 4% SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E4 4 Juvenile Alcohol- and Drug-Related Arrests, by Offense San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Felony Narcotics Marijuana Dangerous Drugs Driving Under the Influence i Other Drug Offenses Total Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Drug Offenses Drunk Liquor Laws Driving Under the Influence Total 117 202 254 11 5 589 1,137 402 497 398 117 2,551 119 159 202 7 7 494 1,143 338 540 492 131 2,644 86 159 151 8 6 41 0 1,130 273 543 581 160 2,687 -26% -21 % -41% " " -30% -1 % -32% 9% 46% 37% 5% -28% 0% -25% " I -1 7% -1 % -19% 1% 18% 22% 2% I TOTAL 3,140 3,138 3,097 -1 % -I % SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG J Appendix E-I 5 Juvenile Drug-Related Arrests, by Sales and Possession San Diego Region, 1995-1999 % Change 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Narcotics Possession 62 62 57 49 32 -48% -35% Sales 55 86 84 70 54 -2% -23% Total 117 148 141 119 86 -26% -28% Marijuana Possession 1,197 1,274 1,090 2,183 1,179 -2% <-1% Possession at School 484 482 386 447 426 -12% -5% Possession While Driving 644 732 667 692 694 8% 4% Other Possession Violations 69 60 37 44 59 -14% 34% Sales 142 120 86 119 110 -23% -8% Total 1,339 1,394 1,176 1,302 1,289 -4% -1% Dangerous Drugs Possession 209 151 204 154 118 -27% -31 % Sales 45 40 50 48 33 -44% -23% Total 2% I91 254 202 I SI 41% -25% Narcotics, Marijuana, and Dangerous Drugs Possession 1,304 1,376 1,197 1,280 1,244 -5% -3% Sales 406 357 374 343 282 -31 % -18% TOTAL ALL DRUGS SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E-I6 Weapons Arrests San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Adult Felony 1,225 984 782 -36% -21 % Misdemeanor 774 31 9 213 -72% -33% Total 1,999 1,303 995 -50% -24% Juvenile Felony 401 656 559 39% -1 5% Misdemeanor 31 8 99 68 -79% -31 % Total 71 9 755 627 -1 3% -1 7% TOTAL 2,718 2,058 1,622 -40% -21 % SOURCES: State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Appendix E17 Weapons Arrests San Diego Region, 1995 and 1999 100% I ,,%I 174%( 60% - 40% - 20% - 0% - I 1 1995 1999 mMult 0 Juvenile I SOURCES State Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; SANDAG Adult White Black Hispanic Other Total Juvenile White Black Hispanic Other Total BY GENDER Adult Male Female Total Juvenile Male Female Total BY AGE 10-14 1517 1 8-24 25-29 30-39 40 and Over Total 1,320,022 114,756 381,946 167,951 1,984,675 142,315 19,896 79,097 27,435 268,743 1,004,564 980,111 1,984,675 138,098 130,645 268,743 174,667 94,076 280,531 236,842 491,973 975,329 2,253,418 1,356,130 1 19,825 424,916 191,694 2,092,565 153,682 21,128 86,840 29,228 290,878 1,055,228 1,037,337 2,092,565 149,471 141,407 290,878 184,595 106,283 279,285 227,731 507,051 1,078,498 2,383,443 Appendix E-1 8 Population Estimations San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 BY ETHNlClTY 1,375,356 122,456 441,133 200,296 2,139,241 157,252 21,630 89,690 29,647 298.21 9 1,078,364 1,060,877 2,139,241 153.069 145,150 298,219 190,455 107,764 289,259 221,168 512,852 1 , 1 15,962 2,437,460 4% 1% 7% 2% 1 5% 4% 19% 4% 8% 2% 10% 9% 13% 8% 11% 7% 8% 8% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3 % 2% 2% 2% 11% 2% 11% 3% 11% 3% 9% 3% 15% 1% 3% 4% -7% -3% 4% 1% 14% 3% 8% 2% SOURCES: State Depadmnnt of Finance: SANDAG Appendix E19 Population Estimations, by Jurisdiction San Diego Region, 1995,1998, and 1999 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado El Cajon Escondido La Mesa National City Oceanside San Diego Sheriff - Total 381 Mar Encinitas mperial Beach -emon Grove 'oway 3an Marcos Santee Solana Beach Jista 57,425 123,619 26,550 74,365 95,904 48,969 43,157 1 17,823 986.841 654,334 4,723 48,593 21,732 20,420 38,485 38,40 1 44,896 12,026 64,755 63,873 133,678 24,400 76,804 100,969 50,191 43,271 125,126 1,030,682 695,921 4,865 50,535 22,353 21,016 40,618 41,707 48,311 12,459 67,561 67,462 137,744 26,277 77,839 102,892 50,765 43,797 128,893 1,057,873 705,452 4,933 51,968 22,645 21,356 41,948 42,793 49,234 12,682 68,933 17% 6% 11% 3% -1 % 8% 5% 1% 7% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 9% 3% 7% 3% 8% 1% 4% 1% 7% 3% 4% 1% 5% 2% 9% 3% 11% 3% 10% 2% 5% . 2% 6% 2% Jnincorporated ' 360,303 386,496 388,960 8% 1 Yo] SOURCES: State Department of Finance; SANDAG Appendix E-20 Population Estimations Five California Counties and State of California, 1995,1998, and 1998 % Change 1995 1998 1999 1995-99 1998-99 Los Angeles Adult Juvenile Total Orange Adult Juvenile Total San Bernardino Adult Juvenile Total San Diego Adult Juvenile Total Santa Clara Adult Juvenile Total State of California Adult Juvenile Total 6,693,906 1,052,598 7,746,504 1,911,690 281,931 2,193,621 1,066,887 22 1,585 1,288,472 1,984,675 268,743 2,253,418 1 ,196,065 175,684 1,371,749 23,158,473 3,764,094 26,923,367 6,819,775 1,052,598 7,872,373 1,976,702 281,931 2,258,633 1,114,883 221,585 1,336,468 2,092,565 290,878 2,383,443 1,258,904 175,684 1,434,588 24,080,238 3,764,894 27,845,132 6,882,636 1,080,108 7,962,744 2,000,440 291,062 2,291,502 1,141,696 227,732 1,369,428 2,139,241 298,2 19 2,437,460 1,280,424 181,102 1,461,526 24,485,146 3,856,702 28,341,848 3% 1% 3% 3% 3 % 1% 5% 1% 3% 3% 4% 1 Yo 7% 2% 3% 3% 6% 2% 8% 2% 11% 3% 8 % 2% 7% 2% 3% 3% 7 % 2% 6% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2 Yo iOURCES: State Department of Finance; SANDAG