Analysis of Community Based Program Use among Juvenile Probation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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,
Cody Xuereb, Research & Planning Manager Juvenile Probation Department City and County of San Francisco July 10, 2019
2
related to CBO Program Use.
questions and presented the analysis to the BOS Public Safety & Neighborhood Services Committee on December 10th, 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
4
2000 4,139 2008 3,446 2017 1,277
2000, 1,460 2017, 637
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Total No. of JPD Referrals
Total No. of Petitions Filed
Number of referrals to SF Juvenile Probation and number of subsequent petitions filed, 2000 - 2017 SOURCES: SFJPD Annual Reports: 2000-2017 (https://sfgov.org/juvprobation/publications-documents)
Referrals to JPD have decreased by two thirds since 2008 Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population has decreased by approximately two-thirds since 2008
2000 120 2008 124 2017 45
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population
Average Daily Population at SF Juvenile Hall, 2000 - 2017
METHODOLOGY: JPD PROGRAM USE SNAPSHOT ANALYSIS
SFJPD’s Probation Services division identified youth with active cases on October 4th, 2018 to review. 415 youth cases were reviewed, representing more than two-thirds (69%) of all 598 JPD cases that were active on 10/4/18. As part of this review, Probation Officers were asked to identify what services or programs each youth on their caseload was
asked to explain why the youth wasn’t receiving services. These responses were then standardized and analyzed. The cases reviewed included youth with “active” cases except those diverted from the formal juvenile justice system and those committed to an out of home placement by the court. Each youth was only counted once even if they had multiple cases. Around 21% (179) of all 598 active youth were identified as being “unavailable” for some type of service. Of these “unavailable” youths, over a third (38% or 43 youth) were living
youth) were at large on an active warrant.
BOS Question: 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.
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.
Case Type/ Phase CARC JUSTICE SERVICES JPD-RUN PROGRAMS PRIVATE/ VOLUNTARY DPH SFUSD JPD IV-E PROGRAMS FOSTER CARE (IV-E) OTHER PRE- ADJUDICATION Diversion
X
In the Community
X X X X X X
In Detention
X X
POST-ADJUDICATION Community Supervision
X X X X X X
Out of Home Placement
X X
Log Cabin Ranch
X
DJJ
X
Non-Minor Dependents (AB12)
X X X X X Overview of Services Available for Different Types of Juvenile Justice Involved Youth
5
6
85% of JPD youth who were available were receiving a community-based service. Being available for services was defined as being able to receive service in the county (i.e. an SF resident, not on a warrant or in county jail).
KEY STATS (10/4/18)
active JPD youth
active JPD youth available for services
% of available JPD youth receiving services
JPD youth not receiving services 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.
Receiving Svcs 256 Not Receiving Svcs, 45 % of 'available' SFJPD Youth receiving vs not receiving a service, 10/4/18 (N = 301)
1 2 8 10 12 12
5 10 15
Referred Unsuccessfully Other Attending College New Case Not Responding/ Engaging Employed # of youth not receiving services by reason (N = 45) Of those not receiving services, almost half were employed or attending college. Around a quarter had been referred to services but did not engage or follow up.
7
SF Justice Svcs (DCYF/ JPD funded), 30% ISCS (DCYF/ DPH funded), 21% Private & Voluntary Svcs., 18%
WRAP (IV-E Fed. Funded) 15% Transitional Housing (Ext. Foster Care) 10% Mental & Behav. Health Svcs (DPH/ JPD funded) 6%
% of youth receiving services by program type as of 10/4/18 (N = 256)
receiving Justice Services
Other, ~1% (see below)
1 2 15 25 38 46 53 76
JPD School Therapy (SFUSD) Mental & Behav. Health Svcs (DPH/ JPD funded) Transitional Housing (Ext. Foster Care) WRAP (IV-E Fed. Funded) Private & Voluntary Svcs. ISCS (DCYF/ DPH funded) SF Justice Svcs (DCYF/ JPD funded) 20 40 60 80
# of youth receiving services by program type as of 10/4/18 (N= 256)
70% of JPD youth were receiving services and programming outside of DCYF’s Justice Services.
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. KEY STATS
JPD youth receiving services
receiving services
Services
using private or voluntary services
8
Number of SFJPD youth receiving SF Justice Services by provider, on 10/4/18 (N = 76)
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.
The two most common Justice Services used by JPD youth were Mission Neighborhood Center home detention programs and detention-based programs
KEY STATS
JPD youth receiving DCYF Justice Services
using detention- based programs
youth using Mission Neighborhood Center Programs
9
10
JPD used the list of active cases on July 5th 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.
SOURCE: Internal JPD review based on caseload data extracted on 7/5/19.
79 14% 156 29% 180 33% 76 14% 56 10% JPD Active Cases by Type, 7/5/19 (N = 547) CARC (Diversion) Active in Intake Active in Supervision (Community Supervision) Active in Supervision (Out of Home Placement) Non-Minor Dependents
included in snapshot
KEY STATS (7/5/19)
active JPD youth
youth included in program use snapshot
% of youth “available” for services amongst snapshot group
*NOTE: This includes non-minor dependents (over 18yrs) and does not include diversion youth receiving services at CARC (79 youth)
foster care placement (76 youth). 37% of youth not available were out of county and 20% were AWOL/ or had an outstanding warrant.
11
81% of JPD youth who were available were receiving a community-based service. Being available for services was defined as being able to receive service in the county (i.e. an SF resident, not on a warrant or in county jail).
KEY STATS Count (7/5/19)
Diff (10/4/18)
Statistic
547
active JPD youth
386
active JPD youth available for services
81%
% of available JPD youth receiving services
44
JPD youth not receiving services SOURCE: Internal JPD review based on caseload data extracted on 7/5/19. 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.
Of those not receiving services, almost half were employed or attending college. Around a quarter had been referred to services but did not engage or follow up. Receiving Svcs 192 Not Receiving Svcs, 44 % of 'available' SFJPD Youth receiving vs not receiving a service, 7/5/19 (N = 236)
Compared to 10/4/18
1 1 4 7 8 9 14
5 10 15
Not Responding/… (blank) Services Refused/… Employed Other (explain in… Attending College New Case # of youth not receiving services by reason
JPD is already taking a number of steps to improve its ability to track program referrals and use to improve effective utilization of available services.
However, to realize comprehensive changes in youth’s lives, we will need to work with CBOs and DCYF to understand which types of interventions are most effective and how these should be delivered. This will require:
ultimately behavioral and real world outcomes (e.g. school attendance, improved wellbeing, etc.).
assessments or against case plan goals, changes in attendance, grades, and pro-social behaviors, etc.
12
Any questions or for more information, please feel free to contact: Cody Xuereb, Research & Planning Manager | cody.xuereb@sfgov.org Sara Schumann, Probation Services Director | sara.schumann@sfgov.org
13