Presentation to the Juvenile Probation Commission Analysis of Community Based Program Use among Juvenile Probation Youth Cody Xuereb, Research & Planning Manager Juvenile Probation Department City and County of San Francisco July 10, 2019
Overview • Background • Initial Analysis of CBO Program Use (Oct 2018) • Updated Analysis of CBO Program Use (July 2019) • Improving Community Program Data Management & Evaluation 2
Background • In October 2018, Supervisor Fewer’s Office requested responses to the following questions related to CBO Program Use. • JPD carried out a snapshot survey of all “active” JPD youth in order to answer these questions and presented the analysis to the BOS Public Safety & Neighborhood Services Committee on December 10 th , 2018. Questions raised by Supervisor Fewer & BOS PSNS Committee on CBO program use: 1. How many JPD funds have been work-ordered to DCYF for FY18-19 services? What are the specific amounts per DCYF funding strategy, i.e. how much JPD money was work-ordered for the multi-service agency strategy, and how much for the justice services strategy? How much JPD money, if any, has been work-ordered to DPH or DCYF for the Intensive Supervision and Clinical Services? 2. What is the number of JPD referrals made to the multi-service agencies and the justice services CBOs from 7/1/18 – 9/30/18, and through date if available? Please list the number of referrals made per CBO under the multi-service agencies and justice services strategies. 3. Please describe the entire JPD referral process so there is clarity on this new process 3
Trends – Juvenile Justice Involved Youth Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population has Referrals to JPD have decreased by two thirds since 2008 decreased by approximately two-thirds since 2008 Number of referrals to SF Juvenile Probation and number of subsequent petitions filed, Average Daily Population at SF Juvenile Hall, 2000 - 2017 2000 - 2017 140 4,500 Juvenile Hall Average Daily Total No. of JPD Referrals Population 120 4,000 2000 2000 2008 3,500 4,139 100 120 124 3,000 2008 80 3,446 2,500 60 2,000 2017 Total No. of Petitions Filed 1,277 1,500 40 2017 2000, 1,460 1,000 45 2017, 637 20 500 0 - SOURCES: SFJPD Annual Reports: 2000-2017 (https://sfgov.org/juvprobation/publications-documents) 4
Analyzing the Use of Community Services In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of service use, JPD completed a snapshot analysis of program use among all youth with “active” cases on 10/4/18. Overview of Services Available for Different Types of Juvenile Justice Involved Youth BOS Question: What is the number of JPD referrals made to the multi-service agencies and the justice services VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS PROGRAMS CARE (IV-E) CBOs from 7/1/18 – 9/30/18, and through date if available? SERVICES JPD-RUN PRIVATE/ JUSTICE JPD IV-E Please list the number of referrals made per CBO under the FOSTER OTHER SFUSD multi-service agencies and justice services strategies. CARC DPH Case Type/ Phase METHODOLOGY: JPD PROGRAM USE SNAPSHOT ANALYSIS ADJUDICATION Diversion X SFJPD’s Probation Services division identified youth with active cases on October 4th, 2018 to review . 415 youth cases were In the Community X X X X X X reviewed, representing more than two-thirds (69%) of all 598 JPD cases that were active on 10/4/18. PRE- In Detention X X As part of this review, Probation Officers were asked to identify what services or programs each youth on their caseload was Community receiving. If the youth wasn’t receiving any services, the PO was X X X X X X asked to explain why the youth wasn’t receiving services. These Supervision responses were then standardized and analyzed. Out of Home POST-ADJUDICATION X X The cases reviewed included youth with “active” cases except Placement those diverted from the formal juvenile justice system and Log Cabin Ranch those committed to an out of home placement by the court. Each X youth was only counted once even if they had multiple cases. DJJ Around 21% (179) of all 598 active youth were identified as X being “unavailable” for some type of service. Of these “unavailable” youths, over a third (38% or 43 youth) were living Non-Minor X X X X X outside of San Francisco, and just over one quarter (28% or 32 Dependents (AB12) youth) were at large on an active warrant. 5
Services Received in the Community Of those not receiving services, almost half were employed or 85% of JPD youth who were available were receiving a community-based service. Being available for services was attending college. Around a quarter had been referred to services but did not engage or follow up. defined as being able to receive service in the county (i.e. an SF resident, not on a warrant or in county jail). # of youth not receiving services by % of 'available' SFJPD Youth receiving vs not receiving a KEY STATS (10/4/18) reason (N = 45) service, 10/4/18 (N = 301) active JPD 598 Employed 12 youth Not Receiving Svcs, 45 Not Responding/ active JPD 12 Engaging 419 youth available Receiving for services 85% Svcs New Case 10 % of available 256 JPD youth 85% receiving receiving Attending College 8 services services JPD youth not 45 Other 2 receiving services Referred 1 Unsuccessfully 0 5 10 15 SOURCE : Internal JPD review based on caseload data extracted on 10/4/18. NOTES : Excludes youth in the Placement unit and in CARC. Youth “available” for services is defined as any youth who is an SF resident, does not have an active warrant, is not a closed case, is not committed to DJJ and is not in a child welfare/ dependency placement. 6
Sources of Community and Clinical Services 70% of JPD youth were receiving services and programming outside of DCYF’s Justice Services. % of youth receiving services by program type # of youth receiving services by program type as of as of 10/4/18 (N = 256) 10/4/18 (N= 256) KEY STATS 0 20 40 60 80 Other, ~1% JPD youth Mental & Behav. Health (see below) 256 receiving Svcs (DPH/ JPD funded) SF Justice Svcs 6% services (DCYF/ JPD funded) 76 receiving Transitional Housing ISCS (Ext. Foster Care) services (DCYF/ DPH funded) 70% 53 10% outside Justice SF Justice Svcs Private & Services (DCYF/ JPD funded), Voluntary Svcs. 46 30% using private or 30% 18% WRAP (IV-E Fed. voluntary Funded) 38 WRAP (IV-E Fed. services receiving Funded) Transitional Housing 15% Justice (Ext. Foster Care) 25 Services Mental & Behav. Health Svcs (DPH/ JPD funded) 15 ISCS Private & (DCYF/ DPH funded), Voluntary Svcs., School Therapy (SFUSD) 21% 18% 2 JPD 1 SOURCE : Internal JPD review based on caseload data extracted on 10/4/18. NOTES : Excludes youth in the Placement unit and in CARC. Labels indicate number of youth and % of all youth receiving services. Categories in “Other” include: School Therapy (SFUSD) (2, 1%) and JPD-provided services (1, <0%). MNC is Mission Neighborhood Center which administers the Home Detention program. 7
DCYF Justice Services by Provider The two most common Justice Services used by JPD youth were Mission Neighborhood Center home detention programs and detention-based programs Number of SFJPD youth receiving SF Justice Services by provider, on 10/4/18 (N = 76) KEY STATS JPD youth receiving 76 DCYF Justice Services using detention- 24 based programs youth using Mission 23 Neighborhood Center Programs SOURCE : Internal JPD review based on caseload data extracted on 10/4/18. NOTES : Excludes youth in the Placement unit and in CARC. Labels indicate number of youth and % of all youth receiving services. Categories in “Other” include: School Therapy (SFUSD) (2, 1%) and JPD-provided services (1, <0%). MNC is Mission Neighborhood Center which administers the Home Detention program. 8
Section 2 Updated Program Use Analysis 9
Youth included in Snapshot Analysis (July 2019) JPD used the list of active cases on July 5 th 2019 for the basis of the updated program use snapshot analysis. Youth active in intake, being supervised in the community and non-minor dependents were included in the snapshot analysis. JPD Active Cases by Type, 7/5/19 (N = 547) KEY STATS (7/5/19) 56 79 CARC (Diversion) 547 10% active JPD youth 14% 76 Active in Intake youth included in 14% 386 71% program use snapshot Active in Supervision % of youth of active youth 156 (Community Supervision) “available” for 61%* included in 29% services amongst Active in Supervision (Out of snapshot snapshot group Home Placement) 180 *NOTE: This includes non-minor dependents Non-Minor Dependents 33% (over 18yrs) and does not include diversion youth receiving services at CARC (79 youth) or youth receiving services as part of their foster care placement (76 youth). 37% of youth not available were out of county and 20% were AWOL/ or had an outstanding SOURCE : Internal JPD review based on caseload data extracted on 7/5/19. warrant. 10
Recommend
More recommend
