The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJCPC Annual Plan FY16-17 FINAL Juvenile Crime Prevention Council County Plan NA r� 17 52 VS Orange County FY 2016 - 2017 Table of Contents I . Executive Summary II . County Funding Plan III . Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Organization IV . County Risk and Needs Assessment Summary V . County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Request for Proposals VI. Funding Decision Summary VII. Funded Programs Program Enhancement Plan (PEP ) Attachments : Risk and Needs Graph Data Continuum at a Glance kk I Executive Summary The Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) , in fulfillment of the duties and responsibilities as set forth in the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina, has completed the activities required to develop and update this County Plan for FY 2016 -2017 . The JCPC has identified issues and factors that have an influence and impact upon delinquent youth, at-risk youth, and their families in Orange County. Further, the JCPC has identified strategies and services most likely to reduce/prevent delinquent behavior. It should be noted that the JCPC continues to support and embrace diversionary strategies, such as Teen Court, that effectively reduce and prevent delinquency. As noted in NC Gen. Stat. § 143 13451 , the JCPC is legislatively mandated to evaluate the effectiveness of its funded programs and the Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, has provided the t Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) Instrument to aide JCPCs with this task. However, the tool cannot be administered to all JCPC funded programs given that some 4 programs are identified as structures or "settings within which program services are delivered" ' (Lipsey, 2005 ) . Programming such as Teen Court may be identified as a structure yet it offers vital diversionary programming to youth. Other services, including some residential programs and structured-day services, also offer vital intervention strategies to youth and families but may not be scored using the SPEP instrument. The JCPC recognizes that these identified structures offer critical prevention/intervention programming and the JCPC adheres to their utilization in its ' strategies to prevent and reduce delinquency. I' 1, Priorities for Funding : Through a risk & needs assessment and a resource assessment, the JCPC I has determined that the following services are needed to reduce/prevent delinquency in Orange County: 1 . Restitution/Community Service 2 . Assessment/Treatment Programs for Un/Underinsured (including Substance Abuse ; Trauma Based Therapy) 3 . Teen Court 4 . Temporary Shelter (specifically Emergency Shelter) 5 . Parent/Family Skill Building 6 . Mediation/Conflict Resolution (including School Based) 7 . Interpersonal Skill Building 8 . Mentoring 9 . Tutoring/Academic Enhancement i Monitoring and Evaluation : Each program funded in the past year by the JCPC has been monitored. The monitoring results and program outcomes evaluations were considered in making funding allocation decisions . The JCPC continues to conduct implementation monitoring of its action plan and its funded programs . lk Fi I I Funding Recommendations : Having published a Request for Proposals for needed services for a minimum of thirty (30) days , the JCPC has screened the submitted proposals and has determined which proposals best meet the advertised needed services . As required by statute, the JCPC recommends allocation of the NC Department of Public Safety (NC DJJ) Funds to the following programs in the amounts specified below for FY 1647 : 1 . Boomerang $275312 2 . Community Service and Restitution $ 885224 3 . Family Advocacy Network $40 ,722 4 . Mediation/Conflict Resolution $275061 5 . Psychological Services $ 115294 p 6 . Teen Court $ 395155 7 . Wrenn House $ 95459 8 . Young Warriors Athletic Scholarship Program $ 195004 The JCPC further recommends that the following amount be allocated from the NC DPS DJJ funds for the administrative costs of the Council for FY l & 17 : $ 15 , 500 Respectfully Submitted, R C Meg McGurk, Chair Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council ORANGE County NC DPS - Community Programs - County Funding Plan Available Funds : $ $277,731 Local Match : $ $216, 787 Rate: 30% DPS JCPC funds must be committed with a Program Agreement submitted in NC Allies and electronically signed by authorized officials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . i : : : : : : : : : : : : : CriurikV Cacti : Lacal" Cash: : : : : : . . . . . . r . . . % Non g .am : >� r4f tde . . . . . . . . . . . . . DI'�=JLTC . . . . . . . .. . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Local Ici �tafe7 : : : : . . . . unds : : : � :otal : : Match Match : : : DPS•JCPC E. . . . Tend: : : : : : lcderal : : - "g " Program Revenues Boomerang $275312 $83194 $55, 000 $215,270 $305, 776 91 % 1 Community Service and Restitution $88, 224 $26,467 $24,248 $138,939 37% 3 Family Advocacy Network $40, 722 $12, 217 $9, 000 $80,621 $142, 560 71 % + Mediation/Conflict Resolution $27, 061 $8, 118 $7,497 $42, 676 37% 5 Psychological Services $11 ,294 $3, 388 $1 , 793 $16,475 31 % 6 Teen Court $39 , 155 $11 , 746 $12,723 $63, 624 38% ] Wrenn House $9,459 $2, 838 $19, 000 $31 ,297 70% 8 Young Warriors Athlete Scholarship Program $19,004 $5, 701 $65000 $35000 $33,705 44% 9 JCPC Administrative Budget $15, 500 $4, 650 $20, 150 23% 10 11 11 13 14 Is 16 / ] 18 TOTALS : $277,731 $83, 319 $133, 468 $300, 6841 $795, 202 65% The above plan was derived through a planning process by the ORANGE County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council and represents the County' s Plan for use of these funds in FY 2016-2017 Amount of Unallocated Funds J)4 0 / _ l 3 ` Amount of funds reverted back to DPS C irperson, J veryte rime Prevention Council I�LLate) Discretionary Funds added /+ I checktype (] initial plan Elupdate El final t� ` l /7//,� -----DPS Use Only----- Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners (Date) or County Finance Officer Reviewed by Area Consultant Date Reviewed by Program Assistant Date Verified by Designated State Office Staff Date Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Organization FY 1546 Name Organization Title Chairperson Meg McGurk Executive Director Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership Vice-Chairperson Bernard Miles Orange County Social Services CPS Supervisor Accountability and Operations Chairperson Community Relations Chairperson Program Support & Accountability Chairperson Number of members : 19 List meeting dates during the current fiscal year and identify the number of JCPC members in attendance for each. Meeting Date Members in Quorum Present? Yes/No Attendance August 2015 12 Yes October 2015 12 Yes December 2015 12 Yes February 2016 11 Yes April 2016 8 No June 2016 10 Yes SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE I. Risk Assessment Summary II. Needs Assessment Summary III. Resource Assessment Summary IV. Summary of Gaps and Barriers in the Community Continuum V. Proposed Priority Services for Funding Part I. Risk Assessment Summary The Orange County JCPC Risk and Needs Assessment Committee reviewed data gleaned from the Juvenile Risk Assessment instrument administered by Juvenile Court Counselors after juveniles are referred with a complaint alleging that a delinquent act has occurred and prior to adjudication of the juvenile . The Juvenile Risk Assessment is an instrument used to predict the likelihood of the juvenile being involved in future delinquent behavior. For some youth, some of the individual item ratings may be heavily dependent upon information reported by the juvenile or the parent(s) . For these items (represented by an asterisk) there is a likelihood of under- reporting the incidence of a particular behavior and the actual incidence may be higher than j suggested by these figures . In those cases, the figure should be interpreted as a measure of the minimum level of occurrence . Orange County Risk Factor Observations . FY 2014-2015 N=93 o Orange County experienced an 8 % decrease in the number of youth at intake as compared to FY 1344 . o 10% of youth were classified as high risk, an increase of 29% from FY 13 - 14 (from 7 to 9 youth) . o 10% of youth were under age 12, which remained the same as FY 13 - 14 . This is also lower than the state average of 16% . o 42% of youth show having one or more prior referrals at the time of intake . I� o 15 % have a prior class 1 - 3 misdemeanors , higher than the state average of 12% ; and 5 % !' have prior class f- 1 felonies or al misdemeanors, consistent with the state average . o While 14% of youth had prior assaults, a decrease of 24%, 3 youth had prior assaults resulting in serious injury and 1 youth had an assault with a weapon. o 22% of youth have run away from home or placement, an 82% increase from FY 1344 . o 43 % * of youth have some known substance use/abuse and need substance use/abuse assessment and/or treatment, an 11 % increase compared to FY 1344 . 17% * need treatment, an increase of 7% from FY 13 - 14 and above the state average of 11 % . o 8 1 % of youth demonstrate moderate to serious behavioral problems in school . However, when compared to FY 1344 there was an 18 % increase in serious problems (from 44 to 52 youth) and 23 % decrease in moderate problems (from 30 to 32 youth) o 73 % * of youth lack pro-social peers and/or regularly associate with others involved in delinquent activity which is above the state average of 58% . Data indicates that 2% * (or 2 youth) associate with or are gang members . o 9% * of parents are willing but unable to supervise youth, consistent with FY 13 - 14 . There was 1 parent/guardian who was unwilling to supervise their child(ren) . i Part II. Needs Assessment Summary The Orange County JCPC Risk and Needs Assessment Committee also reviewed data gleaned from the Juvenile Needs Assessment instrument administered by Juvenile Court Counselors prior to court disposition of a juvenile. The Juvenile Needs Assessment is an instrument used to examine a youth' s needs in the various domains of his/her life : The Individual Domain, The School Domain, The Peer Domain, and the Community Domain. This instrument was designed to detect service intervention needs as an aid in service planning. As with the Juvenile Risk Assessment, some of the individual item ratings may be heavily dependent upon information reported by the juvenile or the parent(s) . For these items (represented by an asterisk) there is a likelihood of under-reporting the incidence of a particular behavior and the actual incidence may it be higher than suggested by these figures . In those cases, the figure should be interpreted as a 9 measure of the minimum level of occurrence. Orange County Elevated Needs Observations : FY 2014-2015 N= 116 o 48% of youth were assessed as having medium to high needs . While this was a 15 % decrease from FY 1344, it is above the state average of 33 % . 7% of youth were assessed as having high needs, a decrease of 47% from FY 13 - 14 but twice the state average of 3 % . o 25 % of youth have healthy peer relationships, a 12% increase from FY 13 - 14 of total youth having positive peers . The percent of youth with gang association indicators remained the same as FY 1344 , but decreased from 5 to 3 youth. o 59% of youth have moderate to serious school behavior problems , a 15 % decrease from FY 1344 and less than the state average of 62% . i o 18 % of youth are functioning below grade level, the same as FY 1344 but above the state average of 9% . This does not include students identified in the Exceptional Children' s program. o 39% * of youth need substance use assessment or substance abuse treatment which is above the state average of 29% . f o 44% of youth are reported to be abuse/neglect victims which is above the state average 20% . 3 % report having NO support, consistent with FY 13 - 14 . o 5 % * of youth have dangerous sexual practices, the same as FY 1344 . No youth had sexually victimized others . o 37% of youth need more mental health assessment, a decrease of 26% from FY 1344 but above the state average of 33 % . There was a reduction of 16% in mental health needs being addressed compared to FY 1344 (from 55 youth to 46 youth) . o 9% of youth have domestic violence in the home, a decrease of 38 % from FY 1344 . However, 26% of youth are experiencing domestic discord in the home, an increase of 43 % from FY 1344 . o 52% of adjudicated youth come from homes where parents/guardians have marginal to inadequate family supervision skills . o 10% of youth have a parent/guardian with a disability which is above the state average of 4% . o 24% * of adjudicated youth have family alcohol/drug abuse in the home , higher than the state average of 10% . o 45 % of adjudicated youth come from homes where family members have criminal history and an additional 9% are under active court supervision or have gang involvement. Part III. Resource Assessment Summary JCPC Funded Programs : FY 1 & 17 1 . Boomerang 2 . Community Service & Restitution 3 . Family Advocacy Network 4 . Mediation/Conflict Resolution 5 . Psychological Services 6 . Teen Court 7 . Wrenn House 8 . Young Warriors Community Resources Community resources are sometimes available but can be difficult to access . See Orange County Continuum of Services — At a Glance for a listing of available community resources . Part IV. Summary of Gaps and Barriers in the Continuum of Services o While Orange County is not large, transportation is a barrier for many youth, especially those in northern Orange County where public transportation is not available . Additionally, the cost of gas is an inhibitor to accessing services , including court ordered sanctions and therapy sessions . One of the major services providers has reduced services in the home . o Young people and families needing bi-lingual mental health and substance abuse services often experience waitlist for services due to the scarcity of bi-lingual therapists and language interpretation. There are no mental health or substance abuse services available for undocumented youth. o While Orange County does have a domestic violence service provider, the services offered are limited and are targeted more towards adult victims . There are no services offered to children/youth who experience or witness discord or violence in their homes . Part V. Proposed Priority Services for Fundiniz The committee compared the services needed to address the elevated Juvenile Risk Factors and G Juvenile Needs with services currently available in the community . Services which are currently available in the community and sufficient to meet the needs of court involved youth or those youth most at risk for court involvement are not considered as a priority for JCPC funding. The Committee proposes that the following service be approved as the funding priorities ' for FY 1647 : i 1 . Restitution/Community Service 2 . Assessment/Treatment Programs for Un/Underinsured (including Substance Abuse ; Trauma Based Therapy) 3 . Teen Court 4 . Temporary Shelter Services (specifically Emergency Shelter) 5 . Parent/Family Skill Building 6 . Mediation/Conflict Resolution (including School Based) 7 . Interpersonal Skill Building 8 . Mentoring 9 . Tutoring/Academic Enhancement i Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Request for Proposals for FY 201647 $ 277 , 731 30 % February 8 , 2016 Anticipated County Allocation Required Local Match Rate Date Advertised The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) has studied the risk factors and needs of Juvenile Court involved youth in this county and hereby publishes this Request for Proposals . The JCPC anticipates funds from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice in the amount stated above to fund the program types specified below. Such programs will serve delinquent and at-risk youth for the state fiscal year 2016- 17 beginning on , or after, July 1 , 2016 . The use of DPS funds in this county requires a local match in the amount specified above . The JCPC will consider proposals for the following needed programs : *Restitution/Community Service *Interpersonal Skill Building *Teen Court *Parent/Family Skill Building *Mentoring *Tutoring/Academic Enhancement *Assessment/Treatment Programs for Un/Underinsured *Mediation/Conflict Resolution *Temporary Shelter Services (including Substance Abuse ; Trauma Based Therapy) (including School Based) (specifically Emergency Shelter) Proposed Program Services should target the following Risk Factors for Delinquency or Repeat Delinquency : Indicators suggest youth coming to the attention of Juvenile Services are at risk for re-offending. Youth are generally age 12 or older & had no prior contact with Juvenile Services . Indicators suggest youth are using/abusing substances , associating with peers who lack pro - social behaviors and are delinquent. Due to the diversity of Orange County, the JCPC is particularly interested in funding programs that offer culturally appropriate services with accomodations for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) youth and their families . Programs should address the following concerns as reported in the Needs Assessments for Adjudicated Youth : Peer Domain : Youth are in need of development of prosocial peer relationships . Indicators suggest that youth regularly associate with delinquent peers . Individual Domain : Indicators suggest youth are victims of abuse/neglect. There is a strong need for individualized mental health and substance use/abuse evaluations and treatment . Family Domain : Indicators suggest youth are exposed to domestic discord or violence in the home . Parents have marginal or inadequate supervision skills, and family criminality, gang involvement, and substance abuse are areas that need to be addressed . School Domain : Indicators suggest youth having moderate to serious behavioral problems at school and youth functioning below grade level . Applicants are being sought that are able to address the legislatively mandated items below : 1 . Program services compatible with research that is shown to be effective with juvenile offenders . 2 . Program services are outcome-based . 3 . The program has an evaluation component. 4 . Program services detect gang participation and divert individuals from gang participation . Local public agencies , 501 (c) (3) non -profit corporations and local housing authorities are invited to submit applications (Program Agreements) for programs addressing the above elements . Rebekah Rapoza at 919-245 -2869 JCPC Chairperson or Designee Telephone # In order to apply for FY 2016=2017 JCPC funding , you must complete and SUBMIT your application online by accessing NC ALLIES . Please read and follow all instructions at the following link: https : //www. ncdl)s. gov/l ndex2 . cfm ?a=000003, 002476 , 002483, 002482, 002514 You may find additional self- help videos to assist you on the NCALLIES webpage by clinking on the HELP tab . Private non -profits are also required to submit the following forms or your application is considered incomplete: 1 ) No Over Due Tax form (available at above link), 2) Notorized Conflict of Interest Statement Template (avavilable at above link), 3) The non- profit's Conflict of Interest Policy and 4) Proof of 501 (c)(3) status. NOTE : For further information , or technical assistance about applying for JCPC funds in this county , contact Denise Briggs , DPS Area Consultant, at (919) 324-6391 . Deadline for Application is : March 9, 2016 by 5 * 00 P . M . Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Funding Decisions Summary Program Funded Reason for Funding Check all that apply) Boomerang ® Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints,violations of supervision& convictions N Has evaluation component N Addresses parental accountability N Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Community Service and N Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient N Addresses reductions of complaints,violations of supervision& convictions N Has evaluation Restitution component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances N Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Family Advocacy N Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient N Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision& convictions N Has evaluation Network component N Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Mediation/Conflict ® Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient N Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision& convictions ❑ Has evaluation Resolution component N Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Psychological Services ® Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other N Other Fills gap for needed service in community N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Teen Court N Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient N Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions N Has evaluation component N Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances N Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Wrenn House ® Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions N Has evaluation component N Addresses parental accountability N Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims N Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other N Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Young Warriors Athlete ® Meets funding priority N Compatible with research N Cost efficient N Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions N Has evaluation Scholarship Program component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims N Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ® Would increase funding to this service if funds were available ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision &convictions ❑ Has evaluation Meets funding priority El Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available ❑ Meets funding priority ❑ Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available ❑ Meets funding priority ❑ Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Funding Decisions Summary E❑ Meets funding priority ❑ Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints,violations of supervision & convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available ❑ Meets funding priority ❑ Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available ❑ Meets funding priority ❑ Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision& convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available ❑ Meets funding priority ❑ Compatible with research ❑ Cost efficient ❑ Addresses reductions of complaints, violations of supervision & convictions ❑ Has evaluation component ❑ Addresses parental accountability ❑ Addresses use of alcohol/controlled substances ❑ Addresses restitution to victims ❑ Addresses gang participation ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Would increase funding to this service if funds were available Program Not Funded Reason for Not Funding Check all that apply) Reintegration Support ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than Network another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ® Other Did not fit mentoring model in policy ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type ❑ Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Lack of funding, addresses priority need and would fund if resources allowed ❑ Does not meet funding priority ❑ Not compatible with research ❑ Lesser quality than another program funded of it's type 0 Greater cost than program of same type and quality ❑ Other ❑ Other Program Enhancement Plan Program: Boomerang Brief Description: Resiliency-based program that engages youth ages 11-17 at risk for disconnection due to short-term suspension or court-involvement, by providing support services to mitigate the risk of school dropout through brief counseling, tutoring & life skills develop. during out-of-school time.Approach is strengths-based, recognizing the assets of each individual student and building on those to create stronger connections to school, family and community. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary Service Supplemental Services Quality of 17 Staff Document staff training events Category B, Quality of Services Service Trainings including training topic, date, Checklist Delivery hours, etc...as part of protocol manual or in personnel files. Program Document evidence of eval's Category D, Quality of Services Evaluation and corrective action plans. Checklist _ menthods. Amount of Service: Duration and Contact Hours Risk Level of Youth Total 17 This Plan is approved by: Program Manage N ame &Signature iDate JOPC C air are& Signature Date Program Enhancement Plan Program: Volunteers for Youth, Community Service and Restitution Brief Description: Program works with youth who have committed offenses and are assigned community service hours and/or to pay restitution. Nonprofit worksites throughout the county provide community service opportunities. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary 10 N/A Service Supplemental 5 Services Quality of 13 Enhance Add detail to improve the Susan Worley Service protocol agency protocol manual. Delivery manual re: staff trainings Staff will receive more trainings and program which will be logged to record eval's trainings and certifications. System developed to document staff and program monitorings to confirm standards and protocols are met. Amount of N/A Susan Worley Duration is determined by court Service: services. Duration and 6 Contact 0 Hours Risk Level of 8 Able to serve Receive referrals for higher risk Susan Worley Youth higher risk youth. youth Total 42 This Plan is approved by: Program Manag Name & Signature Date JC hai Name & Signature Date Program Enhancement Plan Program: Family Advocacy Network, Mental Health America of the Triangle Brief Description: Family Advocates work 1:1 and in group settings with parents of at-risk youth with mental health/substance abuse conditions. Goal is to strengthen parenting skills, reduce parent/youth conflicts, with enhanced skills, reduce re- adjudications, set family goals and teach parents skills to meet these goals for court-involved youth. FAN is a best practice program model utilizing evidence-based curricula with clients. Category Enhancemen Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP t Party Score Opportunity Primary 15 Service Supplemental 5 Services Quality of 16 Enhance Create written process to Marci White Service program describe program evaluation, Delivery protocols monitoring process and correction plans. Amount of Data Quality Review monthly client tracking Marci White Service: data to ensure accurate data is Duration and 6 entered to report contact hours. Contact 4 Hours Risk Level of 0 Data quality Enter risk scores for youth Marci White Youth referred by court service. Total 46 This Plan is approved by: �� (il. / , 2/1/16 U / Prog m Manager Name & Signature Date JJQPC Chair me & Signature Date Program Enhancement Plan Comprehensive Youth and Family Conflict Resolution and Victim-Offender Mediation Program: Brief Restorative Justice practices including circles, mediation, and accountability processes will be conducted by trained facilitators and mediators. Description: Program serves youth referred by Court Counselors,schools, and community partners. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary 15 None Service Supplemental Services Quality of 0 Comprehensive All of this has been completed as of Val Hanson QOS Checklist now shows 15 points. With the Service Manual. December, 2015. additional 3 points for enhancement, this will Delivery No Staff raise our SPEP score by 18 points. turnover. Highly Trained and documented staff Amount of 8 None We are at 86%for duration and 0%for contact Service: hours. It is highly unlikely that we would be Duration and able to increase the contact hours to 8 hours Contact per mediation. Mediations average 2 hours. Hours Risk Level of 18 Willing and able Program will serve higher risk youth Val Hanson Youth to serve. when referred for services. Total 41 With the QOS checklist addition, our basic SPEP score should increase to at least 56-59. This Plan is approved by: �-, � w�� S� 164 2 Program Manager Name & Signature Date idpC Ch ame & Signature D to Program Enhancement Plan FAMILY TABLE Program: Brief Twice a year the Dispute Settlement Center of Orange County(DSC)offers a program free of charge specifically designed for families and Description: their teenage children (12-17)to help them learn how to communicate effectively within the home environment. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary 20 NONE Service Supplemental Services Quality of 0 Comprehensive All of this has been completed as of Val Hanson QOS Checklist now shows 15 points. With the Service Manual. December, 2015. additional 3 points for enhancement, this will Delivery No Staff raise our SPEP score by 18 points. turnover. Highly Trained and documented staff Amount of 0 Increase Our next session of Family Table Val Hanson This will increase our score approximately 10- Service: Duration and beginning on March 1 St will span 12 15 points. Duration and contact hours weeks and we aim to have families that will commit to attending all Contact sessions. Program staff will Hours emphasize the benefit of attending all sessions. Risk Level of 5 Willing and able Program will serve higher risk youth Youth to serve. when referred for services. Total 25 When all action steps are implemented, our basic SPEP score should increase to approximately 60. f � This Plan is approved by: � Program Manager Name & Signature Date C hair N e Signature Dfate Program Enhancement Plan Program: Mental Health American of the Triangle - Psychological Services Brief Description: Provides psychological evaluations and/or assessments for juvenile court involved youth to assist court in best recommendations for youth to minimize the likelihood of recidivism Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary Service Supplemental Services Quality of 20 N/A Maximum points received. Service Delivery Amount of Service: Duration and Contact Hours Risk Level of Youth Total 20 � � This Plan is approved by: � / / (,e 131 l �o ProgrA Manager Name & Signature Date C Ch it Name & Signature Date Program Enhancement Plan Orange County Teen Court Program: Brief Teen Court is a diversion program for first time youth offenders, between the ages of 11-17. First time offenders are tried and sentenced to Description: community service and jury duties,along with other optional sanctions by a jury of their peers. Fellow students take on the roles of defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, clerk of court, bailiff or juror to carry out these proceedings. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary N/A Service Supplemental Services Quality of 16 CategoryA A-add more appendices to manual & Teen Court (Protocol) update TC session procedures. Coordinator Service Category D(Eval.& Delivery Monitoring) D-reapproach law enforcement about Category E(Staff access to track recidivism rates. Eval.) Remind referral sources of 30-day time frame between referral and admission. Reach out by phone before sending a second intake letter in case the address is incorrect. E-revisit employee evaluation form quarterly. Amount of N/A Service: Duration and Contact Hours Risk Level of N/A Youth Total N/A This Plan is approved by: Gri.L• Program Ma er Name & Signature Date JCPC Name & Signature D to Program Enhancement Plan Program: Wrenn House - Orange Brief Description: Wrenn House is crisis shelter designed to provide safe environment for runaway, homeless and in-crisis youth. Wrenn House is open 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Services are for youth ages 10-17. By offering temporary shelter, it eliminates need for illegal means of support by homeless and runaway youth and therefore reduces rate of juvenile crime. It also serves as alternative to detention. Services are provided within therapeutic environment while promoting individuality and empowerment. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary N/A Structure only Service Supplemental Services Quality of 18 1. Staff 1 a. Review retention data. MZ/New Director Service Retention 1 b. Identify positions with Delivery highest turnover and share with 2. Protocol HR Committee of Board Manual 1 c. Complete an agency-wide salary survey using comparable market data. 1 d. HR Committee makes recommendations to the Board about salary adjustments in high-turnover/difficult to fill positions. le. Implement salary adjustments 1f. Review other contributing factors for retention issues. 2a. Review current Wrenn House policies and procedures manual to ensure we have clearly written description of Program Enhancement Plan service delivery, flow of service and frequency and duration of specific interventions (based on implementation of evidence- based practices. 2b. Determine areas for improvement in P& P manual. 2c. Update manual. 2d. Follow up with staff to ensure implementation of updated procedures. Amount of N/A Service: Duration and Contact Hours Risk Level of N/A Youth Total This Plan is approved by: Michelle Zechmann �'� 9/16 / Program Manager Nam6 & Signat e Date C Ch r Name & Signature Date Program Enhancement Plan Program: Young Warriors Athlete Scholarship Program Brief Description: Programming to promote interpersonal skill-building for at-risk and court-referred youth through disciplined karate instruction and training. Service delivery for court-involved youth is minimally 20 classes over a 12 week period. Program provides structured activity and skill building through health, self-discipline, and modeling appropriate behaviors in a group setting. Category Enhancement Action Steps Responsible Comments: SPEP Opportunity Party Score Primary 15 N/A We are correctly categorized Nathan Ligo Highest possible score for program Service here, and there are no steps to type is 85. Current SPEP score of 54 Supplemental 5 be taken. results in a POP score of 64%. Services Proposed improvements below may increase SPEP score by as much as 11 points, which would result in a POP score of 76%. Quality of 17 Address We will ajust our protocol Nathan Ligo By the next PEP, we will have Service categories B, manual to prioritize adujusted our manual to express this Delivery D & E of the improvements in Staff Training, priority, AND will have taken concrete Quality of Prog Eval, Monitoring, steps to implement in at least 1 of the 3 Services Corrective Action, and areas where improvements might be Checklist Staff Evaluation. made, resulting in an increase of 1 to 3 points. Amount of SPEP Moving forward, the SPEP Nathan Ligo In error, the SPEP Service Type was Service: Program Service Type will reflect as changed to Interpersonal Skill Building. Duration and 2 Type "Challenge Program" and not Proposing for FY 16-17, the type will Contact 10 Interpersonal Skill Building. reflect as a Challenge Program and Hours Correct SPEP Service Type will could reslult in a SPEP score increase capture a true meaure of of up to 8 points. duration and contact hours. Risk Level of 5 Youth Program Enhancement Plan Increase With some sources (Carolina Nathan Ligo This is a hard one because, we are service Outreach, for example) we somewhat at the mercy of the folks numbers to might be able to contact who make referrals in terms of who kids with conselors and let them know they reffer.lt is unlikely that we will see higher risk we're seeking higher risk a large jump in this portion of our level. referrals. score. Total 54 This Plan is approved by: ! �� 5/ ate -J PC Chit Name & Signature Date RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISION DATA Orange for FY 10=15 FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12=13 FY 13=14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 _State 13 -14 State 14-15 Total 172 158 134 102 93 16, 584 149218 13, 956 Overall Risk Level FY 10=11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13A4 FY 14-15 State 12-13 1 State 13-141 State 14-15 Low Risk 66% 63% 63% 74% 67% 69% 69% 70% Medium Risk 29% 32% 25% 20% 24% 23% 23% 23% High Risk 5% 5% 1 11 % 7% 10% 7% 8% 7% 80% ■ 70% FY 10-11 60% ■ FY 11 -12 50% ■ FY 12-13 40% ■ FY 13-14 30% - ■ FY 14-15 20% oState 12-13 10% ® State 13-14 0% ! 97 Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk ® State 14-15 Observations: R1 - Age When First Delinquent Offense Alle FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13 -14 FY 14=15 1 State 12wl3l State 13"141 State 14A5 Underage 12 11 % 12% 13% 9% 10% 14% 16% 16% Age 12 or over 89% 88% 87% 91 % 90% 86% 84% 84% 100% 90% ■ FY 10- 11 80% wFY 11 -12 70% ■ FY 12- 13 60% 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 30% - ® State 12-13 20% ❑ State 13-14 10% 0% ❑ State 14-15 Under age 12 Age 12 or over Observations: R2 - Number of Undisciplined or Delinquent I FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13 -14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13A4 State 14=15 Current Referral Only 64% 65% 60% 60% 58% 620/. 62% 62% One Prior Referral 19% 15% 180/. 22% 20% 190/. 19% 18% 2 or 3 Prior Referrals 13% 13% 16% 11 % 10% 120/. 120/. 12% Four or More Prior Referrals 4% 7% 6% 7% 120/u 8% 8% 8% 70% ■ FY 10-11 60% ■ FY 11 -12 ■ FY 12- 13 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 30% ■ State 12- 13 ■ State 13- 14 20% ® State 14- 15 10% 0 % — Current Referral Only One Prior Referral 2 or 3 Prior Referrals Four or More Prior Referrals Observations: R3 - Most Serious Prior Adjudication FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13 =14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13A4 State 14-15 No prioradjudications 750/0 73% 74% 78% 80% 79°/u 80% 81 °/u Prior undisciplined 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Prior class 1 -3 misdemeanors 17% 19% 20% 19% 15°/u 13% 13% 12°/u Prior class f- 1 felonies or a1 misdemeanors 4% 4% 5% 3% 5% 6% 5% 5% Prior A-E felonies 1 % 0% 0% 0% 00/0 0% 0% 00/c 90% ■ FY 10= 11 80% zFY 11 - 12 70% FY 12- 13 60% ! FY 13- 14 50% ■ FY 14- 15 40% ❑ State 12- 13 30% ❑ State 13- 14 20% ❑ State 14- 15 10% 0 % 66 No prior adjudications Prior undisciplined Prior class 1 -3 Prior class f-1 felonies or Prior A-E felonies misdemeanors at misdemeanors Observations: R4 - Prior Assaults FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13=14 FY 14-15 State 12A3 State 13-14 State 14-15 No assaults 84% 91 % 870% 84% 86% 830/. 830/. 82% Involvement in an affray 6% 2% 1 % 4% 2% 4% 3% 3% Yes, without a weapon 8% 6% 13% 13% 8% 12% 12% 12% Yes, without a weapon , inflictin serious injury 0% 1 % 0% 0% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % Yes, with a weapon 2% 1 % 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 10/0 Yes, with a weapon , inflicting serious injury 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 01 0% 0% 100% ■ FY 10- 11 1 90% ■ FY 11 - 12 80% FY 12- 13 70 % ■ FY 13- 14 60% ■ FY 14- 15 50% oState 12- 13 40 % oState 13- 14 30 % 20 % ❑ State 14- 15 10% 0 % ELM No assaults Involvement in an Yes, without a Yes, without a Yes, with a weapon Yes, with a weapon, affray weapon weapon, inflicting inflicting serious serious injury injury Observations: R5 - Runaway from Home or Placement FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13 -14 FY 14-15 State 12=13 State 1344 State 14A5 No 81 % 85% 87% 89% 78% 88% 88% 88% Yes 19% 15% 13% 11 % 22% 12% 12% 12% 100% ■ FY 10-11 80% mFY 11 - 12 60% FY 12-13 aFY 13-14 40% aFY 14-15 20% oState 12-13 0% 1 oState 13-14 No Yes oState 14-15 Observations: R6 - Known Use of Alcohol or Illegal Drugs ( FY 10-11 FY 11 =12 FY 12=13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12A3 State 13 =14 State 14A5 No Known substance use 69% 66% 60% 65% 57% 71 % 71 % 71 % Some substance use, need further assessemen 14% 13% 12% 20% 26% 16% 16% 18% Substance abuse , assessment or treatment nee 170 2 2% 28% 15% 170/. 14% 13% 10/6 80% 70% ■ FY 10- 11 60% ■ FY 11 -12 50% ■ FY 12- 13 40% 30% ■ FY 13- 14 20% ■ FY 14- 15 10% ETn oState 12- 13 0% oState 13- 14 No Known substance use Some substance use, need further Substance abuse, assessment or assessement treatment needed oState 14- 15 Observations: R7 - School Behavior Problems (prior 12 mor FY 10-11 FY 11 =12 FY 12=13 FY 13 =14 FY 14-15 State 12=13 State 13=14 State 14=15 No Problems enrolled , attending regularly) 16% 17% 16°/o 20% 16% 16% 16% 16% Minor Problems 6% 11 % 60/. 80/. 3% 9% 9% 9% Moderate Problems 37% 29% 29% 29% 25% 28% 29% 29% Serious Problems 42% 44% 49% 43% 56% 47% 46% 46% 60 % ■ FY 10-11 50 % - NIFY 11 -12 40 % FY 12-13 30 % ■ FY 13-14 ■ FY 14-15 20 % ■ State 12-13 10 % ■ State 13-14 0 % AI oState 14-15 No Problems (enrolled, Minor Problems Moderate Problems Serious Problems attending regularly) — Observations: R8 - Relationships with Peers FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13-14 State 14=15 Peers are good support and influence 23% 25% 19% 20% 190/u 40% 39% 380 0 Lacks prosocial peers or sometimes associates 48% 44°/u 47% 55% 54% 39% 39% 410/70 Regularly associates with others involved in deli 29% 310/. 3 1 % 22% 25% 16% 17% 17°/u Youth is a gang member or associates with a ga 1 % 0% 3% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 60% ■ FY 10- 11 50% - GFY 11 - 12 40% FY 12- 13 30% ie FY 13- 14 20% ■ FY 14- 15 o State 12- 13 � 10% ❑ State 13- 14 0 % 1h i �..-MMICEI I Peers are good support Lacks prosocial peers or Regularly associates with Youth is a gang member ❑ State 14- 15 and influence sometimes associates others involved in or associates with a gang with delinquent others delinquent activity Observations: R9 - Parental Supervision FY 10-11 FY 11 =12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13-14 State 14=15 ParenUGuardian/Custodian willing & able to sup 92% 82% 87% 92% 90% 80% 81 % 81 % Parent/Guardian/Custodian willing but unable to 5% 15% 13% 8% 9% 19% 18% 18% Parent/Guardian/Custodian unwilling tosu ervis 3% 3% 0% 0% 1 % 2% 1 % 1 % 100% ■ FY 10- 11 ■ FY 11 -12 80% ■ FY 12- 13 60% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 13State 12- 13 20% oState 13-14 0% oState 14-15 ParenUGuardian/Custodian willing & able to ParenUGuardian/Custodian willing but unable to ParenUGuardi aoa .I to supervise supervise supervise Observations: NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISION DATA Orange for FY 10-15 FY 10-11 I FY11 =121 FY 12=13 1 FY 13-14 _ FY 14=15 1 State 12-13 1 State 13A4 State 14-15 Total 208 192 159 147 116 20497 18189 189053 1 Overall Needs Levels FY 10 -11 FY 11A2 FY 1243 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12=13 State 13A4 State 14-15 Low Needs 56% 54% 45% 56% 53% 64% 62% 67% Medium Needs 33% 35% 47% 34% 41 % 32% 33% 30% High Needs 11 % 10% 8% 10% 7% 4% 5% 3% 80% 70 % ■ FY 10-11 60 % • FY 11 - 12 50 % ■ FY 12-13 40% ■ FY 13-14 30% ■ FY 14-15 20% ■ State 12-13 10% ❑ State 13- 14 0% Low Needs Medium Needs High Needs ❑ State 14- 15 Observations: Y1 - Peer Relationships FY 10-11 FY 11A2 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14=15 State 12=13 State 13 -14 State 14-15 Positive Peers 26% 29% 24% 18% 25% 37% 34% 37% Rejected by Positive Peers 19% 15% 18% 22% 220/. 13% 13% 14% Some Association with Delinquent Peers 31 % 32% 37% 35% 38% 32% 32% 32% Regular Association with Delinquent Peers 23% 23% 18% 22% 13% 14% 150/6 12% Gang Association 1 % 1 % 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 5% 40% ■ FY 10- 11 35% ■ FY 11 -12 30% ■ FY 12- 13 ■ FY 13- 14 25% ■ FY 14-15 20% oState 12- 13 15% ❑ State 13- 14 10% f — ❑ Stat e 14- 15 5% I 0% Positive Peers Rejected by Positive Peers Some Association with Regular Association with Gang Association Delinquent Peers Delinquent Peers Observations: Y2 - School Behavior FY 10=11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13 =14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13 =14 State 14-15 No School Behavior Problems 28% 25% 25% 20% 28% 21 % 22% 257/6 Minor School Behavior Problems 11 % 21 % 13% 26% 14% 12% 13% 13% Moderate School Behavior Problems 29% 25% 25% 18% 28% 24% 24% 25% Serious School Behavior Problems 32% 29% 37% 37% 31 % 43% 42% 37% 50% 45% ■ FY 10- 11 40% ■ FY 11 - 12 35% 30% FY 12- 13 25% — — _ ■ FY 13- 14 20% ■ FY 14- 15 15% ■ State 12- 13 10% ■ State 13- 14 5% 0% ® State 14- 15 No School Behavior Problems Minor School Behavior Moderate School Behavior Serious School Behavior Problems Problems Problems Observations: Y3 - Academic Functioning FY 10A1 FY 11 -12 FY 12A3 FY 13-14 FY 14AS State 12-13 State 13-14 State 14-15 At Grade Level 90% 96% 81 % 82% 82% 90% 90% 91 % Below Grade Level 10% 4% 1 19% 18% 18% 10% 10% 9% 120% iFY 10- 11 100% FY 11 - 12 80% ■ FY 12- 13 60% ■ FY 13- 14 ■ FY 14- 15 40% ❑ State 12- 13 20% ❑ State 13- 14 0% oState 14-15 At Grade Level Below Grade Level Observations: Y4 - Substance Abuse FY 10-111 FY 11m121 FY 12w131 FY 13 .14 I FY 14-15 State 12-13 1 State 13-14 State 14-15 No Known Substance Abuse 69% 68% 59% 59% 61 % 70% 68% 71 % Some Abuse Assessment 12% 12% 18% 20% 24% 16% 17% 18% Some Abuse Treatment 19% 21 % 24% 22% 15% 14% 15% 11 80% 70% -- - ■ FY 10- 11 60% ■ FY 11 - 12 50% ! FY 12- 13 40% ■ FY 13- 14 30% ■ FY 14- 15 ❑ State 12- 13 20% ❑ State 13- 14 10% ❑ State 14- 15 0 % No Known Substance Abuse Some Abuse Assessment Some Abuse Treatment I Observations: Y5 - Juvenile Parental Status FY 10=11 FY 11 =12 FY 12A3 FY 13 -14 FY 14AS State 12=13 State 13=14 State 14=15 Juvenile Not a Parent 99% 99% 99% 99% 1000/. 98% 98% 99% Juvenile is a Parent, No Custody 1 % 0% 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Juvenile is a Parent, Expect childcare 1 % 10/. 0% 1 % 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % Juvenile is a Parent, Expect no child care 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 00/0 00/0 120% 100% ■ FY 10- 11 sFY 11 - 12 80% FY 12- 13 i . ■ FY 13- 14 60% ■ FY 14- 15 40% ❑ State 12- 13 20% ❑ State 13- 14 � i ❑ State 14- 15 0% — Juvenile Not a Parent Juvenile is a Parent, No Custody Juvenile is a Parent, Expect childcare Juvenile is a Parent, Expect no child care Observations: Y6 - Abuse Neglect History FY 10 =11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13=14 FY 1415 State 12=13 State 13 -14 State 14=15 No Evidence of Abuse/Neglect 64% 67% 65% 66% 55% 81 % 80% 81 % Abuse Victim With Support 32% 26% 30% 31 % 41 % 16% 17% 17% Abuse Victim but NO Support 4% 7% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 90% 80% ■ FY 10- 11 70% ■ FY 11 - 12 60% FY 12- 13 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 oState 12- 13 30% ❑ State 13- 14 20% ❑ State 14- 15 10% 0% No Evidence of Abuse/Neglect Abuse Victim with Support Abuse Victim but NO Support Observations: Y7 - Sexual Behaviors FY 10 =11 FY 11 -12 FY 12A3 FY 13 -14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13=14 State 14AS No Problem Sexual Behavior 80% 80% 84% 87% 900% 89% 88% 88% Sexual Behavior - Needs Assessment 2% 3% 3% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% Dangerous Sexual Practices 15% 15% 11 % 5% 50% 5% 5% 4% Has Sexually Victimized Others 3% 2% 3% 1 % 0% 30/6 3% 3% 100% 90% ■ FY 10-11 80% ■ FY 11 - 12 70% FY 12- 13 60% 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 30% - ® State 12- 13 20% - [] State 13- 14 10%0% [] State 14 15 No Problem Sexual Behavior Sexual Behavior - Needs Dangerous Sexual Practices Has Sexually Victimized Assessment Others Observations: Y8 - Mental Health Needs FY 10-11 1 FY 11 =12 1 FY 12-13 1 FY 13=14 1 FY 14-15 1 State 1213 1 State 13A41 State 14=15 No Mental Health Needs Noted 27% 21 % 13% 23% 23% 34% 32% 33% Mental Health Needs Addressed 31 % 39% 40% 37% 40% 33% 33% 34% Needs More Mental Health Assessment 41 % 41 % 48% 40% 37% 33% 35% 33% 60% ■ FY 10- 11 50% ■ FY 11 - 12 40% ■ FY 12- 13 30% ■ FY 13- 14 ■ FY 14- 15 20% ® State 12- 13 10% ❑ State 13- 14 0% ❑ State 14- 15 No Mental Health Needs Noted Mental Health Needs Addressed Needs More Mental Health Assessment Observations: Y9 - Basic Needs/Living FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 1243 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13=14 State 14=15 Living with Parent & Needs Met 91 % 92% 91 % 91 % 95% 91 % 90% 93 / Temporary Residence & Needs Met 8% 8% 9% 8% 5% 8% 9% 7% Living with Parent & Needs Unmet 1 % 0% 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Living Independently 10/0 00/0 00/0 00/0 00/0 00/0 0% 0% 100% 90% ■ FY 10- 11 80% - ■ FY 11 -12 70% 60% ■ FY 12- 13 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 30% oState 12- 13 20% ■ State 13- 14 10%0% oState 14- 15 ' Living with Parent & Needs Temporary Residence & Living with Parent & Needs Living Independently Met Needs Met Unmet Observations: Y10 - Health/Hygiene FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13-14 State 14=15 No Health Hygiene Problem 91 % 890/0 86% 89% 87% 90% 90% 91 % Health/Hygiene Problem but Unimpaired 10% 10% 130% 11 % 11 % 9% 10% 8% Health/Hygiene Problem Limits Function 0% 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Health/Hygiene Problem Untreated 0% 0% 1 % 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 100% 90% ■ FY 10- 11 80% ■ FY 11 - 12 70% • FY 12- 13 60% 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14-15 30% ❑ State 12- 13 20% [] State 13- 14 10% rim ❑ State 14 15 0% No Health Hygiene Health/Hygiene Health/Hygiene Health/Hygiene Problem Problem but Problem Limits Problem Untreated Unimpaired Function Observations: F1 • Conflict in the Home FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 1 State 13A41 State 14=15 Supportive Home 67% 67% 69% 75% 66% 77% 76% 77% Domestic Discord 21 % 14% 15% 14% 26% 18% 19% 18% Domestic Violence 12% 20% 16% 11 % 9% 6% 5% 4% 90% 80% ■ FY 10- 11 70% ■ FY 11 - 12 60% a FY 12- 13 50% ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 30% oState 12- 13 20% 10% - ❑ State 13- 14 0% ❑ State 14- 15 Supportive Home Domestic Discord Domestic Violence Observations: F2 - Family Supervision Skills FY 10 -11 FY 11 =121 FY 12=131 FY 13-14 1 FY 14A5 1 State 12-13 I State 13 =141 State 14-15 Adequate 35% 45% 39% 39% 48% 46% 44% 1 475/. Marginal 58% 43% 53% 52% 47% 51 % 52% 50% Inadequate 7% 13% 8% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3% 70% 60% ■ FY 10- 11 50% ■ FY 11 - 12 ■ FY 12- 13 40% ■ FY 13- 14 30% ■ FY 14- 15 20% ❑ State 12- 13 ❑ State 13- 14 10% ❑ State 14-15 0% Adequate Marginal Inadequate Observations: F3 - Disability of Parent/Guardian FY 10-11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12-13 State 13-14 State 14-15 No Disabilities 89% 86% 86% 86% 90% 95% 96% 960//0 Disabilities Noted 11 % 14% 150/. 140/6 100/6 5% 5% 4% 120% 100% 80% ■ FY 10-11 ■ FY 11 - 12 60% FY 12- 13 ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 ❑ State 12- 13 20% State 13- 14 0 % State 14- 15 No Disabilities Disabilities Noted Observations: F4 - Family Substance Abuse FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 12-13 FY 13 -14 FY 14-15 State 12=13 State 13-14 State 1445 No Alcohol/Drug Abuse 78% 67% 77% 74% 76% 90% 89% 90% Family Alcohol/Drug Abuse 22% 33% 23% 26% 24% 10% 11 % 10% 100% 90 % 80 % 70 % ■ FY 10-11 60 % ■ FY 11 - 12 50 % FY 12- 13 40 % In FY 13- 14 30 % ■ FY 14- 15 20 % ❑ State 12- 13 10 % State 13- 14 0% State 14- 15 No AlcohoVDrug Abuse Family Alcohol/Drug Abuse - Observations: F5 - Family Criminality FY 10A 1 FY 11 -12 FY 12A3 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 State 12=13 State 13=14 State 14=15 No Family Criminal History 56% 49% 47% 51 % 46% 62% 60% 59% Family Criminal History 39% 47% 45% 40% 45% 30% 32% 33% Family Active Under Court Supervision or Gang Involvemen 5% 4% 8% 10% 9% 8% 80/6 8% 70% - ■ FY 10-11 60% ■ FY 11 - 12 50% ■ FY 12- 13 ■ FY 13- 14 40% ■ FY 14- 15 30 % ■ State 12- 13 20% State 13- 14 State 14- 15 10% - - 0% No Family Criminal History Family Criminal History Family Acfive Under Court Supervision or Gang Involvement Observations: ORANGE County Continuum of Services - At a Glance Instructions : Adjust arrows to cover target populations mmmmm==Olm� JCPC funded "I'll'*' Available in Community Comprehensive Strategy Nimmm=000� Needed Services Available but difficult access Prevention Graduated Sanctions DPS funded/Non JCPC Target PO ulatiOns Services & Instructions: Pre- Delinquent- Delinquent- Delinquent- Structures Adjust arrows to cover target Youth at Adjudicated Level I/ Prot. Level II Level III Post Release Categories populations All Youth Greatest Risk Youth Supervision Youth Youth Youth Young Warriors Boys & Girls Club Jr. Police Academy Citizens Academy Communities in Schools GED Family Advocacy Network (MHAT) Structured Josh's Hope - Tools for Hope Activities AA/NA (Spanish Speaking) YMCA 4-H Youth Services Girls & Boys Scouts of America Recreation Department Behavior Skills Counseling Experiential Education WIOA Building Futures Program Restitution (VFY) Youth/Family Team Coordin , Community Service (VFY) MEN Restorative Teen Court (VFY) Services Victim-Offender Mediation (DSC) Peer-to-Peer Mediation (OC Middle Truancy Mediation (DSC) Conflict Resolution DSC Alternative School (For Non- Susp Students) Community Alternative to Suspension Day ( Boomerang) Programming Pheonix Academy Day Treatment Ctr. ( RHA) I Partnership Academy Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) AMlkids (FFT) MH Services Parent Education Skills (FAN) Clinical Sex Offender Treatment Treatment Intensive In-Home Intensive Wrap-Around (Youth Villages) High Fidelity Wrap-Around (Youth Villages El Futuro Court Psychologist (MHAT) Assessment Juvenile Crisis & Assessment Ctr Services Substance Abuse Sex Offender Assessment Therapuelic Foster Care Job Corps. Craven Transitional Living (Males) North Hills Transitional Living (Girls) WestCare Residential (Gins) Residential Eckerd Residential (Males) Sub. Abuse Residential Treatment Wright School Whitaker School Emergency Shelter (Wrenn House) Tarheel Challenge