Department of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention
S.L. 2007-323 6.21(c) & (g)
February 1, 2008
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS
SECTION 6.21.(a) No later than February 1, 2008, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide a written report
to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the following funds, programs, or
divisions:
(1) Association of Clerks of Superior Court.
(2) The Conference of District Attorneys.
The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section.
Page 18 Session Law 2007-323 SL2007-0323
SECTION 6.21.(b) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Correction shall provide a written report to the
Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Criminal Justice Partnership Program. The
report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section.
SECTION 6.21.(c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall
provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Juvenile
Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section.
SECTION 6.21.(d) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall provide
a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Environmental
Stewardship Initiative. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section.
SECTION 6.21.(e) No later than February 1, 2008, the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina shall
provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Center for
Nursing. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section.
SECTION 6.21.(f) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services shall provide a written
report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the following funds, programs, or
divisions:
(1) Office of Policy and Planning.
(2) Dental Supplies/Division of Public Health.
The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this section.
SECTION 6.21.(g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
SECTION 6.21.(h) The Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives may review the funds,
programs, and divisions listed in this section and shall determine whether to continue, reduce, or eliminate funding for the
funds, programs, and divisions, subject to the continuation review program. The Fiscal Research Division may issue
instructions to the State departments and agencies affected by this section regarding the expected content and format of
the reports required by this section.
Acknowledgements
The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report is the product of the involvement and
efforts of many individuals. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention graciously
acknowledge the contributions of over 1,400 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council members and service providers
who participated in the North Carolina Central University - Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership
Survey and the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Service Provider Survey. In addition, we received hundreds
of comments and suggestions from participants in the two Department forums on the State of Juvenile Justice in
North Carolina. We thank them for their interest, comments, and suggestions regarding this report.
We especially wish to express our appreciation to Arnold Dennis and Donnie Charleston of the Juvenile Justice
Institute at North Carolina Central University for providing a report on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Membership Survey involving almost 1,000 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council members from communities
throughout the state. Finally, we wish to thank the many Department staff that spent many days and nights
researching, collecting and analyzing data, writing, and revising many drafts of this report. This report
represents a true collaborative team effort by those professionals who are committed to and remain focused on
our youth.
Table of Contents
Legislation
i
Acknowledgements
ii
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary
2
Introduction
4
Section 1
6
Section 2
34
Section 3
65
Section 4
Appendix A & B
74
Section 5
Appendix A & B
109
Section 6
143
Section 7
145
1
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS CONTINUATION REVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention offers the following Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Continuation Review report in response to Special Provision SECTION 6.21.(c) (g). The report is organized into the
seven sections required by the Special Provision. Each section provides information that builds a case for restoring and
increasing the funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs).
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and
the resource requirements. Section one conveys that there are historical and research contexts which set forth a
framework for JCPCs; an emphasis found in these contexts is prevention. Information about the JCPC program is
presented in terms of the State-Local Partnership it reflects. Detail about JCPC services and recipients evidences the
broad range and reach of program operations, and a delineation of resource requirements sets forth that these requirements
reflect an investment that translates into savings now and in the future.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures. Section
two begins by offering a logic model to frame the JCPC approach and includes information that reflects both formative
and summative evaluations of program performance and the meeting of measures related to program performance. The
evidence of JCPC program success ranges from actions that are taken, including the defunding of JCPC programs when
programs do not operate as they should, to the successful achievement of targeted program objectives and legislatively
identified objectives. It also offers information about the Standard Program Evaluation Protocol, the Department’s effort
to evaluate JCPC programs using research and evidence-based practices. The information specifically shows that,
working collaboratively, Department staff and local JCPCs have monitored JCPC program performance by carrying out
systematic interventions in response to varying levels of program effectiveness. These interventions range from providing
additional training and technical assistance to increased intensity of program monitoring and evaluation, to JCPCs making
decisions to discontinue program funding in cases in which service providers were either unwilling or incapable to
respond to provisions in Corrective Action Plans. Further, this section reveals a consistent pattern of JCPC funded
programs in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 that demonstrated a high level of attainment of individual program
measurable objectives in four areas matched to local risk and needs of at-risk and court involved youth in counties
throughout the State. In addition, the data presented also documents significant longitudinal progress (FY 2004-2005 and
FY 2005-2006) by local JCPC programs using six meaningful outcome measures required by statute to demonstrate
program effectiveness. Finally, the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol is described as a tool used by Department
staff and local JCPCs to enhance program development and program effectiveness evaluation and to efficiently meet the
statutory requirement that JCPCs “fund evidence-based programs only.” Overall, this section offers evidence of
significant accomplishments in demonstrating program effectiveness by JCPC programs. Youth are learning skills,
changing behaviors, and changing life styles. Victims are being compensated, and public safety is being enhanced. Cost
savings related to reduced recidivism can be projected from what is offered. All of this is especially notable given that
there has been essentially flat funding for JCPCs from 1999-2007.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding. Section three offers a rationale for continued and
increased JCPC funding that sets forth prevention, statute, data, need, and cost savings as premises. The rationale
highlights how JCPC funding is an essential part of the State’s juvenile justice system and that its continuation and, in
fact, increase are supported by statute, program outcomes data, need for additional resources, and cost savings strategies.
A strong case is made for shifting funding from reduced youth development center commitments to the “front end” of the
juvenile justice system to be used for prevention programs that are effective in diverting at-risk youth from crime and
enhancing public safety. Evidence is provided that convincingly demonstrates a consistent pattern of JCPC grant services
meeting or exceeding their measurable program objectives in such critical areas as school suspension and improved
academic achievement, improved school and home behavior, completed restitution to victims, and improved anger
management skills and job/employment-related skills. Equally important are data demonstrating that JCPC funded grant
programs have effectively achieved program outcomes deemed important to the General Assembly (e.g., reducing
subsequent court complaints and violations of court supervision, fulfilling restitution to victims, and increasing parental
accountability and involvement). Data are also presented that articulate a systematic decision-making process used by
JCPCs resulting in over 100 JCPC funded programs having their funding discontinued by their JCPCs as a result of lack
of effectiveness in meeting program objectives and/or poor project management during FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006.
Finally, a strong case is made for increasing future funding for JCPCs based on increase youth population (including at-
2
risk youth), a lag in funding of JCPCs over the last eight years, and the need for additional resources to further ensure
JCPC program accountability and quality.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding. Section four articulates the very real and serious
consequences of discontinuing funding of JCPC programs and services in the State. These consequences are clearly
evidenced in two recent large-scale surveys: one by the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University
involving almost 1,000 JCPC members from all 100 counties, and a second by the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention in which over 500 JCPC service providers articulated their concerns regarding any proposed
reduction or elimination of JCPC funds for at-risk and adjudicated youth in every county in the State. The consequences
of discontinued funding will negatively impact the successful maintenance of at-risk and juvenile court-involved youth
receiving prevention and intervention programs and services to address their needs. Eighty-four percent of JCPC service
providers will have to cease operation if JCPC funding is discontinued. Law enforcement officials, school administrators,
DSS and Health Services directors, and court counselors participating in these two surveys pointed out the negative
impact on public and school safety, resultant increases in gang activity, increases in school dropouts and suspensions, and
significant increases in court involvement and juvenile commitments to youth development centers if JCPC funding is cut
or discontinued. Ninety-eight percent of county managers and commissioners sitting on JCPCs as members indicated
that they cannot pick up the costs associated with JCPC programs and services in their counties. Equally important is the
fact that the climate of uncertainty created by the continuation review process has put the integrity of the JCPC itself at
risk, in terms of threatening years of interagency collaboration and pooling of resources among community agencies and
organizations. Finally, the Sentencing Commission’s latest research shows that the deeper youth are placed in the juvenile
justice system, the more likely they are to recidivate and enter into the adult correctional system----at a cost to the youth
and a cost to the State that can be avoided by reinstating, making recurring, and increasing funding for JCPC prevention
and intervention programs to meet the needs of youth at-risk and those involved in juvenile courts in the State.
(5) Recommendations for improving services. Section five highlights major recommendations for improving JCPC
programs and services. Sources of these recommendations included over 1,500 respondents to the JCPC Membership
Survey and JCPC Program Provider Survey. Recommendations for JCPC program improvement cluster around three
areas: (1) a systematic review of the JCPC funding formula to determine if it is consistent with community needs,
changes in juvenile offense patterns, and changes in the juvenile ages 10-17 population; (2) improved JCPC program
accountability and effectiveness, including a review of accountability measures for JCPCs as aligned with standards of
good practice for non-profit agencies and government entities, development of a paperless grants management system,
increased funding to train JCPCs in program monitoring, and additional staff at the Department level to improve JCPC
program monitoring and evaluation as well as internal auditing of fiscal processes; and (3) continued development of a
consensus philosophy , practice and skill building that emphasizes the family and System of Care dynamics.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs. Section six focuses on recommendations for reducing costs related to the
operation of JCPC funded grant programs and services throughout the State. Recommendations emphasize possible cost
savings and improved program quality assurance resulting from JCPC multi-year strategic planning, a paperless system of
grants management, use of videoconferencing as a tool for ongoing JCPC member and service provider training, an
initiative to improve the JCPC program monitoring and evaluation system, and a systematic review and plan of action by
JCPCs and county agencies to reduce any overlap in services and to better serve underserved youth. An additional point
about reducing costs in this area involves a concluding recommendation that has been voiced in other parts of the
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s response to the continuation review requirements. This
recommendation highlights that costs are saved through the expenditure of JCPC funds. By reinstating and increasing
these funds, an investment in the people and communities of the State occurs with associated cost savings in multiple
areas: law enforcement; the court system; juvenile justice; and adult corrections. Expenditures which focus on prevention
now bring benefits today and into the future. Every youth who increasingly engages in juvenile delinquency and crime
costs the State more resources and represents a loss beyond those costs in terms of his or her future positive contributions
as a taxpaying citizen of the State.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly. Section
seven proposes six policy issues for attention: prevention; youth served; allocation; blended funding; mental health needs
and services; and accountability and evaluation. Each requires discussion and decision.
3
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sees the required Juvenile Crime Prevention
Council (JCPC) Continuation Review as an opportunity for the State to examine an approach that is working.
When JCPCs were established as part of juvenile justice reform in 1998, they were put forth as the mechanisms
through which youth would be prevented “from becoming delinquent.” JCPCs were also intended by the
General Assembly “to provide noninstitutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and
juveniles.”
Prevention and Public Safety ring throughout North Carolina General Statute – Chapter 143B Article 12 which
describes JCPCs and the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Prevention and public
safety are linked in the statute and are linked in our communities. JCPCs enable prevention and intervention
strategies to be implemented in a process that targets the needs of youth, families, and communities. These
strategies have impacts that are immediately felt through youth and family participation in JCPC programs with
one of the primary impacts being on the safety of our communities. Youth gain beyond their program
participation by learning skills that translate into positive behaviors. Such behavioral changes ultimately lead to
life changes which impact the quality of life in all of our communities.
The continuation review report makes the case for reinstating and increasing funding for JCPCs. This case is
supported by evidence that reflects positive outcomes for youth who participate in programs. The evidence that
is offered goes beyond statistics to the input received from thousands of North Carolinians who responded to
questionnaires and attended public forums during the continuation review process. The Department has heard
from judges, law enforcement officials, school administrators, county commissioners, city officials, mental
health experts, academics, program / service providers, parents, and youth --- all stakeholders who support
JCPC funding.
The message resonating from these various groups is to remember that the history of juvenile justice reform is
one reflective of an intent to prevent juvenile delinquency and crime. The message also is to remember that we
need to refocus on what funding like this is all about – the youth of our State who represent the future of our
State. The message is also to fund JCPC efforts in order to meet the wide ranging needs of these youth, their
families, and our communities and to maintain the safety of our communities. Finally, the message is one of
reminding all of the responsibility we have to our communities for public safety and to these youth and their
families for giving them the opportunity to be law-abiding citizens.
The Department readily acknowledges that we do not succeed with every youth we serve. We also realize that
some JCPC programs are unsuccessful in spite of our efforts. We, who serve the most at-risk youth of the State,
have one thing in common. We never write off an at-risk youth as a hopeless case. We try hard to save every
youth that lands in our system. With this in mind, we say that the time to act on this continuation review is now
(see Figure One).
4
5
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM, SERVICES, RECIPIENTS AND RESOURCE REQUIRMENTS
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services,
and the resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The first section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “A
description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of
services, and the resource requirements.” The following offers that information after providing
some historical and research contexts.
Historical and Research Contexts for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils: The Juvenile
Justice Reform Act (1998) and the Comprehensive Strategy
A review of history reveals that North Carolina’s approach to juvenile crime was redefined in
1998 with the ratification of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. GS §143B-543 reads, “It is the
intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at risk from becoming delinquent.”
The statute further articulates the General Assembly’s intent “to provide non-institutional
dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and the juveniles” (see Appendix A.
GS §143B-550). The intent set forth in this statute is totally consistent with national models for
effective and successful juvenile justice systems and highlights the need for prevention to be a
key focus of juvenile justice.
The North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was established
in July 2000 with a very purposeful approach to the inclusion of “Delinquency Prevention” in its
name. As the first cabinet-level agency to focus on juvenile justice issues and at-risk youth in
the State, the Department works to provide North Carolina with a research-based, comprehensive
strategy that is designed to prevent and reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. Interesting to
note is that an important element of juvenile justice reform in other states has been the
establishment of high level executive branch agencies dedicated to the prevention of
delinquency. Among those are the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois, who since 2005
have elevated their juvenile justice agencies to cabinet level departments. Illinois also separated
6
its juvenile justice system from its adult corrections system in order to make the necessary and
desired transition from an adult correctional model to one of delinquency prevention and
treatment. 1
The Comprehensive Strategy (see Figure One), a two-tiered system for responding proactively to
juvenile delinquency and crime, focuses to strengthen families, promote delinquency prevention,
support core social institutions, intervene immediately when delinquent behavior occurs, and
identify and control the small group of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in the
local communities.
Figure One: Comprehensive Strategy
NC’s Comprehensive Strategy
for Juvenile Delinquency
Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending
Prevention
Target Population: At-Risk Youth
Programs for
All Youth
>
Programs for Youth at
Greatest Risk
Immediate
> Intervention >
Graduated Sanctions
Target Population: Delinquent Youth
Intermediate
Sanctions
Community
> Confinement >
Training
Schools
>
Aftercare
Preventing youth from becoming
Improving the juvenile justice system
delinquent by focusing prevention
response to delinquent offenders
programs on at-risk youth
through a system of graduated
sanctions and a continuum of
treatment alternatives
In the first tier, delinquency prevention and early intervention programs are relied upon to
prevent and reduce the onset of delinquency. If these efforts fail, then the second tier needs to
make proactive responses to juvenile delinquents by addressing the risk factors for recidivism
and the associated treatment needs of delinquents, particularly those with a high likelihood of
becoming serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. To reduce this likelihood, a continuum
of sanctions (a set of integrated intervention strategies designed to operate in unison to enhance
accountability, ensure public safety, and reduce recidivism by preventing future delinquent
behavior) and services for juvenile offenders needs to be in place.
The prevention and early intervention component is based on a risk- and protection-focused
model that was initially developed in the public health arena. The public health model, for
1
Melanie King, “Guide to the State Juvenile Justice Profiles, “ National Center for Juvenile Justice Technical
Assistance to the Juvenile Court Bulletin (April 2006):1.
7
example, indicates that the best way to treat heart disease is to prevent it from occurring in the
first place. Likewise, the best way to address delinquency and juvenile crime is to prevent it
from occurring. A continuum of prevention strategies is needed to address each of the major risk
factor domains (individual, family, peer group, school, and community). This is where the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils, the subject of this Continuation Review report, come into
play. Additionally, the graduated sanctions component consists of five levels of sanctions,
moving from least to most restrictive:
•
•
•
•
•
Immediate intervention with first-time delinquent offenders (misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies) and nonserious repeat offenders
Intermediate sanctions for first-time serious or violent offenders, including intensive
supervision for chronic and serious/violent offenders
Community confinement in small community-based facilities or programs for offenders
who require intensive services in a staff-secure environment
Secure corrections for the most serious, violent, and chronic offenders
Aftercare for confined youth, including step-down interventions coupled with decreasing
services
The comprehensive strategy is research based, data driven, and outcome focused. It empowers
communities to assess their own delinquency problems and guides them in how to use data to
design and develop their own comprehensive strategies.
Description of the Program: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) are the foundation for North Carolina’s
comprehensive strategy to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and crime (see Appendix A:
N.C.G.S. § 143B-543). JCPCs are responsible for planning and developing strategies to address
and prevent juvenile delinquency at the county level in partnership with the State so that there is
coordination with statewide resources, priorities, and objectives. JCPCs are responsible for
developing alocal continuum of needed sanctions and services to address the issues of delinquent
juveniles, those juveniles most likely to become delinquent, and their families.
JCPC membership composition consists of nineteen specific members (local leaders, agency
directors - or their designees, and professionals who work with youth and families in various
capacities) and up to seven members of the public who are appointed to serve by the County
Board of Commissioners. These individuals are not only the key leaders and decision makers in
the county; they are the most knowledgeable of the problems and issues related to youth and
families in the county. They represent agencies and organizations who are working to prevent
crime, teen pregnancy, school drop-outs and substance abuse. They represent the many settings
where youth gather and interact in the community, such as schools, recreation facilities, and
community centers. These settings are the places either where delinquent acts may occur or
where youth may be engaged in pro-social activities.
In addition to the statutory membership, a critical participant in each JCPC is one of the
Department’s 10 area consultants. The area consultant serves as the Department’s liaison to the
JCPC and functions as the “glue” that binds the local process with the statutory mandates,
8
policies, and objectives. The area consultant, in addition to providing various levels of technical
assistance to the county and the JCPC, plays a significant role as facilitator for various processes
leading up to decisions in training, planning, funding, and evaluating. The area consultant often
serves as a catalyst for initiating collaboration and problem solving.
Many JCPC members are key community decision makers who have knowledge of and
sometimes have access to other potential funding streams, or resources which may be used or
combined with others to help meet the financial or material requirements of needed services. In
order to stretch the available state funding, JCPCs work to leverage and make the best possible
use of those existing community resources to meet the needs of youth and families. For instance,
if an agency can donate office space and utilities, state funds which otherwise would go towards
those expenses may be used to help increase the number of juveniles who may be served by a
grant or to fund an additional grant. Other examples of donations might include food for afterschool programs or office supplies. Examples of other local sources of funding which may be
blended with state funding include local foundation grants or United Way funds, or a county
appropriation. While local sources are usually not sufficient to totally fund or equip a needed
service, these monies may be used to cover part of the expenses of a grant.
The juvenile justice system in the United States has been described as being not one single
system, but fifty-one disjointed systems which function differently under different juvenile codes
with varying philosophies as to how to respond to juvenile delinquency. 2 Across the nation,
many of these 51 systems are neither uniform nor seamless. The partnership in North Carolina
between the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the 100 counties of
the State is an essential link for implementation of an effective and seamless juvenile justice
system. The State-Local Partnership allows North Carolina to have one unified juvenile justice
system rather than 100 fragmented local systems with a state overlay of courts and institutions.
A purely state-centered planning and service development model creates a universal plan:
however, the diverse and unique resources and strengths of the local communities are lost, and
needs are generalized across the state. A universal plan must assume that similar resources and
approaches will satisfy the circumstances in each county in the same way. This will result in
some services being unnecessarily duplicated, and the wrong or unneeded services being
provided in some areas. Such an approach does not foster, promote, or model the level of
collaboration needed at the county level to get local agencies to support and cooperate with
efforts to reduce incidences of delinquency.
On the other hand, a purely local-centered approach to planning, decision making, and service
development loses the ability to coordinate with the other 99 counties or with the State in terms
of policy, resources, continuity and consistency of services, or standards of practice. This
approach results in a smattering of disjointed strategies, approaches, and priorities across the
each of the individual counties and throughout the State. This approach fails to yield a uniform
statewide system of delinquency prevention strategies, graduated sanctions, and alternatives to
commitment.
2
Melanie King, “Guide to the State Juvenile Justice Profiles, “ National Center for Juvenile Justice Technical
Assistance to the Juvenile Court Bulletin (April 2006):1.
9
While the Comprehensive Strategy stresses the high level of importance of local planning and
decision making, it also stresses the critical importance of developing mechanisms for
coordination and collaboration between the juvenile justice and other service provision systems,
including education, mental health, law enforcement, health, and social services. 3 In North
Carolina, these systems exist as agencies at both the state and county level. The Department is
the only one of these agencies with direct administrative authority over its community level
services. Each of these other agencies is in varying degrees administratively autonomous from its
state level counterpart. The Department is therefore in a unique position to foster and facilitate
collaboration with these systems at not only the state level, but simultaneously at the county
level.
The partnership that exists between the State and counties (see Figure Two) allows for “a joining
together” of the unique strengths and resources of the State with those resources existing within
each individual county. Figure Two illustrates how the necessary elements for implementing the
Comprehensive Strategy are brought together at the county level, enabling the JCPC to function.
While the work of the JCPC is driven at the county level, the involvement of the Department is
critical to equipping the JCPC to fulfill its role in developing a local continuum of services.
Services and tasks provided by the Department include training, technical assistance, information
infrastructure, juvenile justice data, planning and evaluation instruments and operational policies
and procedures, process facilitation, and funding.
3
James C. Howell, et. al., Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic
Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, 1995), p. 9-10.
10
11
The work of the JCPCs is completed in an annual cycle which initiates with the beginning of a
new fiscal year and concludes with the ending of that fiscal year. Decisions of the JCPC are
driven and supported by data which substantiates the services which are needed in the county but
are either unavailable or otherwise inaccessible. A competitive grant process is used to solicit
proposals for needed services which otherwise do not exist or are not available in the county.
A number of steps and processes are involved in the annual cycle for each JCPC. The
Department and County JCPC Task Calendar (see Appendix B.) illustrates the sequence and
relationship of the various necessary steps and activities required throughout the year. The
calendar not only shows the tasks to be completed by the JCPC, but also details the associated
work of the Department in terms of preparation, facilitation, technical assistance and logistical
support of those tasks.
Information on Services Provided: Components of Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Funded Grants
Since juvenile justice reform, an allocation of JCPC funding has been granted by the General
Assembly to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This allocation in
turn is distributed to each county to fund local grants which address the needs of juvenile
delinquents and their families and youth most likely to become delinquent. Grants provide
services which are not otherwise available or accessible in each individual county.
Knowledge about what is needed comes from the JCPC’s planning process in each county. Each
county JCPC conducts an assessment of local resources and a local Risk and Needs Assessment.
The Department provides each JCPC with juvenile justice data specific to each individual
county. The Department, through the assigned Area consultant, facilitates a review and
discussion of the juvenile justice data. JCPC members add local insight with other sources of
local information such as academic achievement, substance abuse, mental health, teen
pregnancy, and local crime reports. Through this process, the JCPC determines the conditions
and circumstances - risk factors - within the county which increase the likelihood for juveniles to
become delinquent or engage in repeated delinquent acts. The JCPC then determines the
services and interventions which are needed to negate or off-set the effects of those risk factors.
Needed services which are not otherwise available or accessible in the community are then
prioritized. Proposals to provide these services are then solicited through a Request for
Proposals and a competitive grant process.
The planning process and the grant selection process insure that the grants selected and the
services provided meet the unique circumstances in each county and allow for implementation of
the best combination of services for that county to address reduction and prevention of
delinquency. Grants are selected for funding based on factors which include: ability to provide
the needed service; ability to work effectively with the juveniles and families intended to be
recipients of the service; ability to reduce/prevent delinquent behavior and recidivism; ability to
provide interventions which are consistent with research or best practices; ability to competently
manage state funds and operate in a cost efficient manner; and ability to maintain records, data,
and otherwise be accountable for implementation of the approved grant. Selection of grants is
12
also impacted by the availability of funding. Some grants proposing to provide needed services
may not be selected once the county’s funding allocation is committed to higher priority
services.
In FY 2004-2005, JCPCs funded 542 grants statewide in their efforts to provide a seamless
continuum of services to the youth in each of the 100 counties in the State. Each grant consisted
of one or more specific service components identified as a “service type”. There are currently
twenty-six (26) types of service components, each operating under standards of operation
outlined by DJJDP policy. In FY 2004-2005, 709 service components were included in the
funded grants.
In FY 2005-2006, JCPCs funded 505 grants statewide containing 658 service components in
their efforts to provide a seamless continuum of services to the youth in each of the 100 counties
in the State.
The components provided by the grants provide services and interventions consistent with statute
(see Appendix A: GS §143B-550) which lists strategies and concepts that are cited as “effective
in preventing juvenile delinquency and substance abuse, and that should be made available as
basic services in the communities.” Grants consist of one or more of the following components.
COMPONENTS PROVIDING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES:
• Group Home Care: Twenty-four hour care for a residential placement lasting six to eight
months The placement is therapeutic and may have a structured family-like environment
for youth. Includes intervention with client’s family during and after placement and
targets a reduction in offending behavior and recidivism.
• Temporary Shelter Care: Group home care and shelter (up to 90 days) for juveniles who
need to be temporarily removed from their homes during a family crisis.
• Runaway Shelter Care: Shelter care for juveniles who have runaway from home, are
homeless or otherwise need short term care (10 days or less) while arrangements are
made for their return home.
• Specialized Foster Care: Care for youth with serious behavioral or emotional problems
through foster parents whose special training is designed to help them understand and
provide needed support for children who are placed in their care.
• Temporary Foster Care: Short-term (up to 90 days) emergency foster care for diverted or
adjudicated juveniles who need to be temporarily removed from their homes during a
family crisis. Foster parents have been specially trained to understand and support the
youth placed in their care.
COMPONENTS PROVIDING CLINICAL TREATMENT:
• Counseling: Processional, clinical treatment with a licensed counselor or therapist.
Counseling may be one-on-one (individual), family counseling or group counseling. The
focus of counseling is to resolve any of a range of problems including but limited to
interpersonal relationships, problem behavior, or substance abuse.
• Crisis Counseling: Short-term assistance to juveniles in immediate danger of physical or
emotional injury by a helping professional either face-to-face or by phone.
13
•
•
•
•
Sex Offender Treatment: Outpatient assessment and/or therapeutic services to juvenile
offenders targeting inappropriate sexual conduct and offending behavior with a clear
focus on rehabilitation and accountability of the offender. Practiced primarily in groups,
the treatment has a family group component or focus, has designated follow-up
procedures and is generally legally mandated.
Psycho-Educational Supportive Counseling: Provides education to help a juvenile better
understand his current circumstances and brief interventions to encourage and support
him to make more positive decisions.
Home Based Family Counseling: Short term, intensive services focusing on family
interactions/dynamics and their link to delinquent behavior. Involves the entire family
and is typically conducted in the home. May also include the availability of a trained
individual to respond by phone or in person to crises. The goal is to prevent delinquent
and undisciplined behavior by enhancing family functioning and self-sufficiency.
Intensive Home Visiting: Regular contact with court involved youth in their homes to
review supervision conditions of juveniles and to provide guidance to parents regarding,
parenting skills and structure. This category is no longer used. Components of this type
have been replaced by Home Based Family Counseling components or Parent/Family
Skillbulding components.
COMPONENTS PROVIDING ONLY EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT
• Psychological Assessment: Psychological evaluation or assessments to help court
counselors and judges recommend the most appropriate consequences and
treatment for court involved youth.
RESTORATIVE COMPONENTS:
• Mediation/Conflict Resolution: Provides a process for a juvenile and a victim to resolve
a problem or a dispute outside of the formal court process. Mediators do not counsel or
give advice but facilitate communication among parties as the parties work to reach their
own decisions regarding resolution of their conflict. These components offer immediate
and short-term involvement with youth to focus resolving negative and/or offending
behaviors.
• Restitution/Community Service: Provides supervised worksites in which juveniles are
held accountable for their actions that have affected the community and/or victim(s).
Through supervised, assigned work, a juvenile earns credit towards payment of monetary
compensation for victims (if required) and performs work for the benefit of the
community as a consequence of his offense. Juveniles are supervised by adult staff or
trained adult volunteers.
• Teen Court: Provides a diversion from juvenile court where trained adult and youth
volunteers act as officials of the court to hear complaints. Recommended sanctions
include but are not limited to community service and restitution (if applicable) for youth
who have admitted committing minor delinquency and undisciplined complaints.
Professional adult staff provides supervision of the court proceedings and any subsequent
community service and/or restitution.
14
STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES COMPONENTS:
• Mentoring: Matches adult volunteers with delinquent or at-risk youth on a one-on-one
basis. The mentor is an individual providing support, friendship, advice, and/or
assistance to the juvenile. After recruitment, screening and training, the mentor spends
time with the juvenile on a regular basis and engages in activities such as sports, movies,
helping with homework, etc…
ƒ Interpersonal Skill Building: Assists juveniles in developing the social skills required for
an individual to interact in a positive way with others. The basic skill model begins with
an individual’s goals, progresses to how these goals should be translated into appropriate
and effective social behaviors, and concludes with the impact of the behavior on the
social environment. Typical training techniques are instruction, modeling of behavior,
practice and rehearsal, feedback, and reinforcement. May also include training in a set
of techniques, such as conflict resolution or decision making, that focus on how to
effectively deal with specific types of problems or issues that an individual may confront
in interacting with others.
ƒ Parent/Family Skill Building: Assists parents/guardians with psychological, behavioral,
emotional, or interpersonal issues faced by a parent(s) of a juvenile engaging in problem
behaviors or delinquent acts. This component provides parenting skills development,
including communication and discipline techniques. May include sessions for parents
only and/or sessions for parents and family members.
ƒ Experiential Skill Building: Assists juveniles in developing needed skills through the use
of outdoor adventures and physical activities or challenges to instruct, demonstrate, and
allow the practice of effective interpersonal, problem solving, communication and similar
skills to achieve the goals of increasing self-esteem, building interpersonal skills, and
building pro-social behavior.
ƒ Tutoring/Academic Enhancement: Assists juveniles in understanding and completing
schoolwork and/or classes. May assist juveniles and parents with study skills and
structure for studying and completing academic assignments. May also provide trips
designed to be an enrichment of or supplemental experience beyond the basic educational
curriculum.
ƒ Vocational Development: The overall emphasis focuses on preparing the juvenile to enter
the work force by providing actual employment, job placement, non-paid work service
(non-restitution based), job training or career counseling. These programs provide
training to juveniles in a specific vocation, career exploration or career counseling, and/or
job readiness.
ƒ Life Skills Training: Provides opportunities for juveniles to develop the necessary skills
to effectively manage every day living. This may include a wide range of issues such as
general problem solving, social/moral reasoning, balancing responsibilities, how to deal
with housing issues, time, and money management.
ƒ Guided Growth:
Interventions focus on interpersonal skillbuilding, experiential
skillbuilding, vocational development, or life skills training. Components of this
category are being reclassified to a more specific type.
ƒ Prevention Services: Interventions provide a primary focus on preventing youth from
becoming juvenile delinquents by providing counseling, interpersonal skillbuilding,
experiential skillbuilding, vocational development, or life skills training. Components of
this category are being reclassified to a more specific type.
15
ƒ
Re-Entry Services: Interventions to help juveniles returning to the community from
residential placements cope with transition to their new setting. Components that provide
this type of intervention are now classified under as counseling or one of the skillbuilding
services.
COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS:
• Juvenile Structured Day: Provides a highly structured and supervised setting for
juveniles who are short term or long-term suspended from school or are exhibiting
behavior that might otherwise result in placement in detention. Typically, these
components serve youth who are court involved and referrals are made from juvenile
court counselors. These components may operate on a full or partial day schedule.
Interventions include Individual and/or Family Counseling, Substance Abuse
Education/Treatment, Restitution/Community Service, Tutoring, Alternative Education,
Vocational Development and Structured Activities.
Recipients of the Services: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils
JCPC grants are designed to serve youth between the ages of 6 and 17 who are at-risk of
becoming involved in undisciplined or delinquent behavior, engaging in delinquent or
undisciplined behavior, or who have been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined. During FY
2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, there were a total of 61,288 youth participants in JCPC-funded
grant programs. Recipients of services are defined as “youth participants” and are identified as
youth admitted into programming, youth receiving services, and youth discharged from
programming during a fiscal year. Conducting analysis of the data in this manner is appropriate
because admissions to and terminations from programming are continually fluid, and the number
of youth participants can account for youth that are being served by grant continuation programs
across fiscal years. For example, a youth may enter into programming in April and continue a
curriculum-based service well into a new fiscal year in order to successfully complete the
service. Therefore, participation stretches across the normal cutoff for a fiscal year. Services are
not interrupted due to the end of one fiscal year and the beginning of another. There is a
continual flow of services. Of critical importance to recognize is that most programs function in
this manner. The strength of these continuation programs lies heavily upon the working
knowledge of continuation funding and the county and state partnership in administering JCPC
funds. Key to the function of JCPC grants is the knowledge that there are “continuation funds”
even though the final award of the grant monies to a program may fluctuate from fiscal year to
fiscal year.
For purposes of this report the following demographics will be reported on youth participants
during FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006: Gender; Juvenile Justice Involvement; Age; Living
Arrangements at Admission; School Enrollment Status; Reason for Referral; and Referral
Sources. All data are generated from the Client Tracking Access Database Application that grant
funded programs must utilize.
Males account for about two-thirds of the youth participants in grant funded programs while onethird of youth participants are female. Of these youth, 37.2 percent were identified as youth atrisk participants in FY 2004-2005 and 36.8 percent were identified as youth at-risk participants
16
in FY 2005-2006. Youth at-risk are identified as youth that demonstrate significant
inappropriate or anti-social behavior and have a high probability of court involvement. These
youth have not been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined but possess many of the risk factors
that are strong predictors for delinquent behavior. Exposure to risks such as family conflict and
disruption, community drug and alcohol use, academic failure, early and persistent behavior
problems in school, and the presence of gangs correlate to high rates for juvenile delinquency. 4
The remaining populations served by JCPC grant-funded programming have had some contact
with a Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Court Services district office
and been diverted into programming or have penetrated the juvenile justice system.
Approximately, sixty-three percent of youth served by JCPC grant-funded programs are
identified as having contact with or penetrating the juvenile justice system from FY 2004-2005
and FY 2005-2006. (See Juvenile Justice Involvement at Admission of Program Participants
Charts)
Gender of Program Participants FY 04-05
Female, 33.3%
Male, 66.7%
n= 31,400
4
John A. Pollard, J. David Hawkins, and Michael W. Arthur, “Risk and Protection: Are Both Necessary to
Understand Diverse Behavioral Outcomes in Adolescence?” Social Work Research (September 1999): 146-156.
17
Gender of Program Participants FY 05-06
Female, 33.7%
Male, 66.3%
n= 29,888
Juvenile Justice Involvement at Admission of
Program Participants FY 04-05
Adult Court
Involved,
1.8%
Juvenile
Court
Involved,
58.2%
Youth-atRisk, 37.2%
Court
Counselor
Consultation,
2.8%
n= 31,400
18
Juvenile Justice Involvement at Admission of
Program Participants FY 05-06
Youth-atRisk, 36.8%
Adult Court
Involved,
2.2%
Court
Counselor
Consultation,
2.4%
Juvenile
Court
Involved,
58.5%
n= 29,888
An average of 78 percent of youth participants in JCPC grant-funded programs from FY 20042005 and FY 2005-2006 were10 to 15 years old. With increases noted by the Department in
undisciplined populations, there has been a steady increase in youth participants ages 16 and 17.
Serving this age range population will become a topic of increasing concern for local JCPCs in
their grant-funding deliberations as discussions are occurring statewide that promote inclusion of
this population into the juvenile justice service arena. The local JCPC service continuum would
be forced to serve larger numbers and older youth in its local continuum.
Admission Age of Program Participants
FY 04-05
35%
30%
30%
26%
23%
25%
20%
15%
12%
10%
5%
4%
4%
1%
1%
0%
Under
7
7 to 9 10 to13
14
15
16
17
Over
17
n= 31,400
19
Admission Age of Program Participants FY 05-06
35%
30%
30%
26%
25%
21%
20%
15%
12%
10%
5%
4%
4%
1%
1%
0%
Under
7
7 to 9 10 to13
14
15
16
17
Over
17
n= 29,888
An average of 48 percent of youth participants are from single parent homes, with approximately
22 percent of youth participants living with both parents (See Living Arrangements at Time of
Admissions Charts).
Living Situation at Admission FY 04-05
Mother &
Stepfather
9.8%
Mother Only
42.3%
Group Home
3.0%
Other
Relative(s)
8.9%
Other
placement
outside of
Home
3.4%
Foster Care
1.7%
Father Only
5.6%
Father &
Stepmother
2.6%
Both Parents
22.7%
n= 31,400
Living Situation at Admission FY 05-06
Mother &
Stepfather
9.5%
Mother Only
42.4%
Group Home
3.0%
Foster Care
2.0%
Father Only
5.6%
Father &
Stepmother
2.4%
Both Parents
22.0%
Other
Relative(s)
9.3%
Other
placement
outside of
Home
3.7%
n= 29,888
The school enrollment status of youth participants referred to JCPC grant programs illustrates the
extremely high percentage of youth that are enrolled in school at time of referral; note this is at
time of referral but not reflective of the histories many of these youth have which include
multiple short-term and long-term suspensions. In both FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, 94
percent were enrolled in school at time of referral while only 5 percent were long-term
20
suspended or expelled while 1 percent had dropped out (See School Enrollment Status at
Admission Charts).
School Status at Admission FY 04-05
Enrolled or
completed:
school, or
other
academic
program
93.8%
Dropped
Out
1.3%
Expelled or
Long Term
Suspended
4.9%
n= 31,400
School Status at Admission FY 05-06
Enrolled or
completed:
school, or
other
academic
program
94%
Dropped
Out
1.3%
Expelled or
Long Term
Suspended
4.7%
n= 29,888
An average of 66.9 percent of youth participants are referred to grant programs for problems
identified as delinquent behavior (person, property, and victimless crimes). Youth participants
that committed status offenses or were considered ungovernable account for an average of 20.1
percent of youth participants during FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 (See Reasons for Referral
Charts).
Problem
behavior
(victimless
crime)
17%
Problem
behavior
(person
crime)
27%
Reason for Referral for Participants FY 04-05
Runaway
1%
Truancy
2%
Problem
behavior
(property
crime)
23%
Ungovernable 17%
Abused
1%
Dependent
0.3%
Other
11%
Neglected
1%
n= 31,400
21
Reason for Referral for Participants FY 05-06
Problem
behavior
(property
crime)
23.1%
Problem
behavior
(person
crime)
27.0%
Problem
behavior
(victimless
crime)
17.1% Runaway
1.2%
Truancy
3.3%
Ungovernable 14.7%
Other
11.9%
Neglected
0.8%
Abused
0.5%
Dependent
0.4%
n= 29,888
About 56 percent of youth participants were referred from district juvenile service offices with
the remaining participant referrals coming from the school, law enforcement, resource officer,
DSS as well as other child-serving entities (See Referral Source for Program Participants
Charts).
Referral Source FY 04-05
Law
Enforcement
5.2%
Juvenile
Court
56.4%
DSS
2.9%
Clergy
0.1%
Self
0.7%
Secure
Custody
0.1%
Mental Health
1.2%
Multi-purpose
Home
0.0%
Other
Parent/
5.7%
Guardian
6.3%
School
Resource
Officer
5.6%
Referral Source FY 05-06
Law
Enforcement
5.2%
Juvenile
Court
56.5%
DSS
3.0%
Clergy
0.0%
Self
0.7%
Secure
Custody
0.0%
School
15.8%
n= 31,400
Mental Health
1.3%
Multi-purpose
Home
0.1%
Other
Parent/
6.0%
Guardian
6.6%
School
Resource
Officer
5.4%
School
15.2%
n= 29,888
In keeping with GS 143-549, JCPCs have not only continued to fund dispositional option
programming as a priority but seriously consider the risk and needs data in their respective
22
communities in identifying services needed that are unique to each individual county
populations.
Resource Requirements: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils
The resource requirements for implementing JCPCs begin with reliance upon continuation
funding that reflects the State and Local Partnership mentioned earlier and extend to
requirements related to providing services to an increasing population, policy guidelines,
county/local matching funds, an improved database and capacity to employ it, enhanced
accountability, and critical program operation needs such as transportation. The need for
evaluation also adds to the JCPC resource requirements.
In 1978 the North Carolina General Assembly set forth a grass-roots effort to provide
delinquency prevention funding for community-based programming in all 100 counties in the
State of North Carolina. This structure laid out by the legislature encouraged a partnership
between local county governments and the State. Local county Youth Services Advisory
Councils were established and designated to assist with delinquency prevention planning and
programming efforts. The success of this structure and the impact on the youth served in every
county accounted for the legislature’s confidence in a community-based planning model. Along
with that confidence came recurring funds to address delinquency prevention planning efforts at
he local level. With the passage of the North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998,
JCPCs evolved from what was once Youth Services Advisory Councils and heavy emphasis was
placed on the methodology of a comprehensive evidence-based approach to addressing
delinquency at the community level. One of the benefits reflected by this change was inclusion
of local decision makers in the process. This new approach relied on the completion of JCPC
legislated tasks annually and the continued use of a recurring fund base to address targeted
delinquency prevention and intervention service needs. For thirty years, North Carolina has
provided the infrastructure, the partnership, and the recurring fund base which has allowed a
continual, structured decision-making process and promised the fluidity of prevention and
intervention funds at the local county level, a vital key to service continuum building. The halt to
this recurring fund base, however, will systematically impact the local service continuum. Reestablishment of recurring funds is vitally necessary to prevent interruption of services to North
Carolina’s youth in all 100 counties.
From 1998 to 2007, the statewide youth population ages 10-17 increased 19 percent, while JCPC
funding statewide has been essentially flat. During this nine-year period, JCPC funding has
averaged around $22.4 million. Although the state funding allocation has fluctuated from $21.7
million in FY 1999-2000 to a high of $23 million in FY 2004-2005, JCPC funding has
essentially remained stagnant. During this same time span, however, youth development center
population commitments have decreased by approximately 70% since the formation of the
Department. With virtually no shift in funding from YDC commitments to the “front end” of the
Juvenile Justice system over this nine-year period, local service continuums have had to absorb
significant increases in youth programming needs in the community with virtually no increase in
JCPC grant funded resources. JCPC grant funded program capacity has been severely limited
by this fact. At the same time, the generation of gaps in services within the local service
continuum due to mental health reform, ballooning increases in the number of long-term and
23
short-term suspended youth, increases in school dropouts, and the surge of gang-related activity
in communities have created a critical need for expanded JCPC funded programs and services.
JCPC funded grant programs have steadily responded to the target population stressors by
serving greater numbers of youth since the Department’s inception; however, capacity
expansions are limited without increases in funds to support the targeted population being
served. The constraints on available resources and limited funding can only deepen the
complexity of these problems that are being faced statewide.
Beyond partnership and population, policy guides much of the fiscal and programmatic resource
requirements for JCPC grant funded programs. Programmatically, the type of service provided
by the grant dictates the qualification and credentialing of staff employed or whether a facility
needs licensure for the service provided. Staff to youth ratios must fall within the minimum
standard guidelines for a program type. Overall, JCPC funded grants were supported by an
average of 1213 full time equivalent (FTEs) positions during FY2004-2005 and FY2005-2006.
Grants rely heavily upon the local workforce to support programming for youth.
Fiscal policy requires that JCPC grant-funds leverage a local match of 10 percent, 20 percent, or
30 percent to support Department funds allocated to a grant provider. The State is divided into
thirds with one-third of the counties providing a 10 percent match, one-third providing a 20
percent match and one-third providing a 30 percent match, based on economic indicators. Local
matching resources come in the form of cash and/or in-kind support from varying sources in the
local community. During FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, JCPC grant-funded programs
generated $12,310,186 and $12,561,436, respectively, of matching cash and in-kind local
support to grants providing prevention and intervention efforts in the community. Leveraging
community matching revenue sources against JCPC grant funds promotes ownership by the local
community of its grant programs. Again, the State and local partnership is key to the success of
addressing delinquency prevention and intervention efforts at the local county level.
Resource requirements also surface in relation to JCPC data. For thirty years, the State has
utilized a client tracking database for reporting demographic and impact data on youth
participants in grant-funded programs. Prior to 2002, all grant-funded programs submitted paper
reports to an Area Office where a processing assistant keyed data into a client tracking database
application. In an effort to improve reporting, in 2002 with no additional supportive funding, the
Department modified the application to an Access Visual Basic database and distributed it
statewide to all grant-funded programs to promote data entry at the program level. The use of
the Internet and email attachments has now become the accepted means of transmitting the client
tracking data from JCPC grant-funded programs to the Area Offices. Though multiple layering
of data transmission is a cumbersome and antiquated means with which to operate, this is the
only system of data collection that can be supported at the time. The current database application
was never originally designed to be utilized in this manner, and the Department has constantly
encountered and corrected technical issues both at the State and local levels. Support services
from the Department’s Information Technology team have provided assistance but the entire data
reporting system needs enhancement in both design and utilization. A web-based application
(estimated cost $125,000) would greatly improve program accountability, enhance the
Department’s ability to interface with its current NC-JOIN database that serves the court services
population, and enable better legislative reporting. Three additional Information Technology and
24
research staff are needed to implement the enhanced databases, web-based application, and
improved program evaluation capacity (estimated annual cost $200,000).
Resources are also required to enhance accountability. Currently, there are ten area consultants
that provide oversight and technical assistance to 100 JCPCs and over 500 grant-funded
providers statewide. To ensure the fiscal integrity and evidenced-based delinquency prevention
and intervention strategies are in place at the county and programmatic levels, the consultant
becomes an integral part of the planning efforts locally. Consultants attend and participate in all
levels of the annual planning process and additionally, provide technical assistance and training
to grant providers and JCPCs. Furthermore, on-site monitoring of local grant-funded programs is
the only mechanism that can insure program integrity and improvement. Given the depth of
technical tasks that the JCPC must complete and the limited manpower available, there is a need
for additional personnel to support the complexity of the tasks that must be completed annually.
To ensure that programs are consistently and uniformly monitored, there is a need for more
personnel serving in these roles. In order to ensure the fiscal integrity of all programs in a region,
there is a need for eight additional consultants: four for enhancing the level of technical
assistance and program monitoring and evaluation (estimated annual cost $200,000) and four for
managing the internal audit functions of over 500 JCPC funded grant programs (estimated
annual cost $200,000).
Resources related to critical program needs exist as grant programs providing services at the
county level strive to work within their limited budgets. Often, a JCPC will work as a team to
provide support among and between programs by, for example, sharing resources, transferring
underutilized funds from one program to a program of need, or teaming with other professionals
to provide additional support services to youth and their families. A critical need that programs
constantly report is the need for additional monies to support transportation of youth and families
to and from programming. (See results of JCPC Provider Survey in the Consequences of
Discontinuing Program Funding and Recommendations for Program Improvements sections of
this report.) Rural counties particularly struggle with meeting the transportation needs of youth
participating in programs. The economic impact of rising gas prices has certainly been felt.
Additional funding to support transportation costs for programs is considered a need for most if
not all funded programs.
Finally, there are resource requirements related to the need for evaluating JCPCs. With the
passage of the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North Carolina became the second state
(Washington being the first) to mandate that only evidenced-based services for juvenile
offenders would be eligible for state funding. The Act required the Department of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention to ensure that only effective programs receive State funds as
well as to conduct an evaluation of programs funded through the State’s JCPC infrastructure.
The optimum approach to such an evaluation would be to assess the impact of each of the funded
programs with reference to outcomes; however, such impact evaluations are expensive and
require specialized research resources which were not provided to the Department. Given this
situation, the Department looked to what other states were doing to evaluate programs. Many
states were moving forward with what were variously called “evidence-based,” “researchbased,” or “best-practice” programs but with little evidence about the effects of taking such
programs to scale in a statewide system and no ready means of determining success. Movement
25
to adopt “model programs” was also a popular approach to evidence-based practice. Model
programs are specific named programs that have been evaluated and found effective in prior
research studies. In North Carolina, few existing programs were model programs of this sort.
Moreover, to have any assurance that those programs would be effective when local providers
attempt to replicate them, they would need to be applied very much like they were in the research
studies—with similar juveniles and with faithful adherence to the original program protocols for
the nature and amount of service. In practice, model programs are frequently modified and
adapted to at least some extent when implemented locally. The model program approach to
ensuring that the Department fund only effective programs and then assess them to ensure that
they are effective would require massive retraining of program providers and close monitoring of
each program to ensure that the respective models were being implemented with fidelity.
A variation of the model programs approach, therefore, was considered and ultimately chosen by
the Department. This approach identifies research evidence applicable to existing programs and
uses that evidence to develop standards by which those programs can be evaluated with regard to
how closely the services they deliver match those shown to be effective in that research. In this
approach, what constitutes a program is defined more broadly than in the model program
approach, thus relevant research studies will encompass some diversity of program variations,
participants, and settings. Systematic synthesis of the findings of all the research studies of the
effects of a particular type of program, using a technique known as meta-analysis 5, is then used
to identify the program characteristics that are associated with the most positive outcomes and
which, therefore, provide the basis for guidelines about effective practice. The synthesis
approach is thus similar to the model program approach in its reliance on previous research
conducted someplace other than the local implementation. It differs from that approach by
focusing on generic types of programs rather than specific named programs, by drawing on a
larger body of research evidence about the effectiveness of those programs, and by providing
less rigid guidelines for program practice. It is similar to the model program approach, however,
by requiring evidence of effectiveness and using that evidence to develop standards for effective
practice that can be used to assess the performance of any given program and to guide program
improvement.
The Department chose the “meta-analysis” approach to achieve its goal of instituting evidencebased practices and to meet its statutory requirements to evaluate JCPC programs given the
context of limited resources. The Department contracted with Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell and
Dr. Mark W. Lipsey and his staff at Vanderbilt University’s Center for Evaluation Research and
Methodology to develop a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of JCPC funded
delinquency prevention programs. The outcome of this work produced The Standardized
Program Evaluation (SPEP) tool.
To date, JCPC grant-funded program providers strive to replicate and apply effective
interventions from the evaluation research that supports the SPEP by attempting to apply the
optimal mix of primary and supplemental services, duration and frequency of the service, and
service delivery to the appropriate age and risk level of youth into their program practices.
Additionally, the review of SPEP scoring has been incorporated into the JCPC annual planning
5
Meta-analysis is a technique for statistically representing and analyzing findings from a set of empirical
research studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
26
and funding process. Grant-funded programs are recommended to incorporate into programming
the most effective programmatic characteristics that the research-base suggests reduces
recidivism while at the same time function with little to no increases in their grant funds. Those
that have taken measures to modify their service delivery to align with SPEP such as adding
additional supplemental services or extending the duration of programming to targeted youth
have had to reduce their numbers of youth served due to funding constraints.
Changing the dynamics of service delivery continues to be an important role for the consultant
and additional resources are needed from both a technical and fiscal perspective to assist local
grant programs with alignment of suitable programmatic features that are well matched with the
local continuum of services. Project resources needed to fully implement the SPEP tool for
program development and program evaluation will entail the addition of one new staff person in
the Department’s Information Technology section to manage SPEP and to work on furthering the
ability of SPEP to generate SPEP ratings for JCPC funded grant programs that cannot currently
generate these ratings (estimated annual cost $80,000). Also, additional training of JCPC grant
program providers by area consultants and a contracted SPEP consultant are needed to assist
Department staff in further build-out of the SPEP tool and integration with Department databases
($10,000).
Taken together, the resources required for JCPCs reflect an investment in prevention as intended
by statute. An investment in prevention translates into savings now and into the future. Meeting
the resource requirements of JCPCs represents a “best buy” for the State given that other costs in
both the juvenile justice and adult corrections systems can be avoided and the public can be
better protected from juvenile delinquency and crime.
Summary and Conclusion
Section one of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provides “A
description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of
services, and the resource requirements.” It conveys that there are historical and research
contexts which set forth a framework for JCPCs; an emphasis found in these contexts is
prevention. Information about the JCPC program is presented in terms of the State-Local
Partnership it reflects. Detail about JCPC services and recipients evidences the broad range and
reach of program operations, and a delineation of resource requirements sets forth that these
requirements reflect an investment that translates into savings now and in the future.
APPENDIX A: GS § 143B-543. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils
Part 6. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils.
§ 143B-543. Legislative intent.
It is the intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at risk from
becoming delinquent. The primary intent of this Part is to develop community-based
alternatives to youth development centers and to provide community-based delinquency
and substance abuse prevention strategies and programs. Additionally, it is the intent of
27
the General Assembly to provide noninstitutional dispositional alternatives that will
protect the community and the juveniles.
These programs and services shall be planned and organized at the community level
and developed in partnership with the State. These planning efforts shall include
appropriate representation from local government, local public and private agencies
serving juveniles and their families, local business leaders, citizens with an interest in
youth problems, youth representatives, and others as may be appropriate in a particular
community. The planning bodies at the local level shall be the Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2001-95, s. 5.)
§ 143B-544. Creation; method of appointment; membership; chair and vice-chair.
(a)
As a prerequisite for a county receiving funding for juvenile court services and
delinquency prevention programs, the board of commissioners of a county shall appoint a
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council. Each County Council is a continuation of the
corresponding Council created under G.S. 147-33.61. The County Council shall consist
of not more than 26 members and should include, if possible, the following:
(1)
The local school superintendent, or that person's designee;
(2)
A chief of police in the county;
(3)
The local sheriff, or that person's designee;
(4)
The district attorney, or that person's designee;
(5)
The chief court counselor, or that person's designee;
(6)
The director of the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and
substance abuse authority, or that person's designee;
(7)
The director of the county department of social services, or
consolidated human services agency, or that person's designee;
(8)
The county manager, or that person's designee;
(9)
A substance abuse professional;
(10) A member of the faith community;
(11) A county commissioner;
(12) Two persons under the age of 18 years, one of whom is a member of
the State Youth Council;
(13) A juvenile defense attorney;
(14) The chief district court judge, or a judge designated by the chief district
court judge;
(15) A member of the business community;
(16) The local health director, or that person's designee;
(17) A representative from the United Way or other nonprofit agency;
(18) A representative of a local parks and recreation program; and
(19) Up to seven members of the public to be appointed by the board of
commissioners of a county.
The board of commissioners of a county shall modify the County Council's
membership as necessary to ensure that the members reflect the racial and socioeconomic
diversity of the community and to minimize potential conflicts of interest by members.
28
(b)
Two or more counties may establish a multicounty Juvenile Crime Prevention
Council under subsection (a) of this section. The membership shall be representative of
each participating county.
(c)
The members of the County Council shall elect annually the chair and
vice-chair. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2001-199, s. 1.)
§ 143B-545. Terms of appointment.
Each member of a County Council shall serve for a term of two years, except for
initial terms as provided in this section. Each member's term is a continuation of that
member's term under G.S. 147-33.62. Members may be reappointed. The initial terms of
appointment began January 1, 1999. In order to provide for staggered terms, persons
appointed for the positions designated in subdivisions (9), (10), (12), (15), (17), and (18)
of G.S. 143B-544(a) were appointed for an initial term ending on June 30, 2000. The
initial term of the second member added to each County Council pursuant to G.S.
143B-544(a)(12) shall begin on July 1, 2001, and end on June 30, 2002. After the initial
terms, persons appointed for the positions designated in subdivisions (9), (10), (12), (15),
(17), and (18) of G.S. 143B-544(a) shall be appointed for two-year terms, beginning on
July 1. All other persons appointed to the Council were appointed for an initial term
ending on June 30, 2001, and, after those initial terms, persons shall be appointed for
two-year terms beginning on July 1. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 1999-423, s. 15; 2000-137, s.
1(b); 2001-199, s. 2.)
§ 143B-546. Vacancies; removal.
Appointments to fill vacancies shall be for the remainder of the former member's
term.
Members shall be removed only for malfeasance or nonfeasance as determined by the
board of county commissioners. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b).)
§ 143B-547. Meetings; quorum.
County Councils shall meet at least bimonthly, or more often if a meeting is called by
the chair.
A majority of members constitutes a quorum. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 1999-423, s. 16;
2000-137, s. 1(b).)
§ 143B-548. Compensation of members.
Members of County Councils shall receive no compensation but may receive a per
diem in an amount established by the board of county commissioners. (1998-202, s. 1(b);
2000-137, s. 1(b).)
§ 143B-549. Powers and duties.
(a)
Each County Council shall review annually the needs of juveniles in the
county who are at risk of delinquency or who have been adjudicated undisciplined or
delinquent and the resources available to address those needs. The Council shall develop
29
and advertise a request for proposal process and submit a written plan of action for the
expenditure of juvenile sanction and prevention funds to the board of county
commissioners for its approval. Upon the county's authorization, the plan shall be
submitted to the Department for final approval and subsequent implementation.
(b)
Each County Council shall ensure that appropriate intermediate dispositional
options are available and shall prioritize funding for dispositions of intermediate and
community-level sanctions for court-adjudicated juveniles under minimum standards
adopted by the Department.
(c)
On an ongoing basis, each County Council shall:
(1)
Assess the needs of juveniles in the community, evaluate the adequacy
of resources available to meet those needs, and develop or propose ways
to address unmet needs.
(2)
Evaluate the performance of juvenile services and programs in the
community. The Council shall evaluate each funded program as a
condition of continued funding.
(3)
Increase public awareness of the causes of delinquency and of strategies
to reduce the problem.
(4)
Develop strategies to intervene and appropriately respond to and treat
the needs of juveniles at risk of delinquency through appropriate risk
assessment instruments.
(5)
Provide funds for services for treatment, counseling, or rehabilitation
for juveniles and their families. These services may include
court-ordered parenting responsibility classes.
(6)
Plan for the establishment of a permanent funding stream for
delinquency prevention services.
(d)
The Councils may examine the benefits of joint program development between
counties within the same judicial district. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b).)
§ 143B-550. Funding for programs.
(a)
Annually, the Department shall develop and implement a funding mechanism
for programs that meet the standards developed under this Part. The Department shall
ensure that the guidelines for the State and local partnership's funding process include the
following requirements:
(1)
Fund effective programs. – The Department shall fund programs that it
determines to be effective in preventing delinquency and recidivism.
Programs that have proven to be ineffective shall not be funded.
(2)
Use a formula for the distribution of funds. – A funding formula shall
be developed that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to
provide the basic prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their
communities.
(3)
Allow and encourage local flexibility. – A vital component of the State
and local partnership established by this section is local flexibility to
determine how best to allocate prevention and alternative funds.
30
(4)
Combine resources. – Counties shall be allowed and encouraged to
combine resources and services.
(b)
The Department shall adopt rules to implement this section. The Department
shall provide technical assistance to County Councils and shall require them to evaluate
all State-funded programs and services on an ongoing and regular basis.
(c)
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall report to
the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and
Public Safety no later than March 1, 2006, and annually thereafter, on the results of the
alternatives to commitment demonstration programs funded by Section 16.7 of S.L.
2004-124. The 2007 report and all annual reports thereafter shall also include projects
funded by Section 16.11 of S.L. 2005-276 for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. Specifically, the
report shall provide a detailed description of each of the demonstration programs,
including the numbers of juveniles served, their adjudication status at the time of service,
the services/treatments provided, the length of service, the total cost per juvenile, and the
six- and 12-month recidivism rates for the juveniles after the termination of program
services. (1998-202, s. 1(b); 2000-137, s. 1(b); 2005-276, s. 16.11(c).)
§§ 143B-551 through 143B-555. Reserved for future codification purposes.
31
32
33
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
MEANINGFUL MEASURES OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND
WHETHER THE PROGRAM IS MEETING THESE MEASURES
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The second section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide
“meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these
measures.” A logic model (see Figure One) will be utilized to facilitate understanding of the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) framework of operation. This model will be followed
by formative and summative evaluation information which addresses “meaningful measures of
program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.”
This discussion will examine for FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 the funded grant program
effectiveness in meeting or exceeding measurable objectives, a discussion of systematic
interventions by Department staff and local JCPCs in response to issues of program
effectiveness, a description of factors impacting JCPC grant funding continuation decisions, a
data-based analysis of performance measures and outcomes of JCPC grant programs for FY
2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 as required by G.S. 143B-519(b)1), and a description of the
Standardized Program Evaluation Profile as a tool used by Department staff and local JCPCs for
program planning and effectiveness evaluation.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Performance: A Logic Model
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) are the foundation of North Carolina’s
comprehensive strategy to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and crime. They operate in
all 100 North Carolina counties. They reflect an infrastructure best described in terms of a state
– local partnership between the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and
county representatives. One approach to examining how well JCPCs perform is in terms of a
logic model (see Figure One) which lays out assumptions, inputs, processes, outcomes, and
external factors which may impact their operation.
34
LOGIC MODEL (DIAGRAM A)
35
The logic model framework is one used in performance auditing. It enables the examination of
performance from detail to the “big picture” and affords some understanding of the flow of
operations. For JCPCs, the model offers that there are a number of assumptions, including
statute, recurring funding being available, the value of a state-local partnership, a prevention
research foundation, a system of graduated sanctions, the essential contributions of local
knowledge and decisions, and pooled resources. These assumptions under gird the flow of
inputs, processes, and outputs. The inputs include funding (both State and county; dollars as
well as in-kind), data, knowledge, plans, people (including the JCPC members themselves), and
commitment. Processes reference “activities” that are being “performed”; with JCPCs, in
addition to service delivery or programming, activities ranges from planning, training, and
contracting to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting. “Activities” also include for JCPCs their
critical role in diverting youth form court and more costly juvenile justice services. Who
participates in JCPCs falls into the realm of processes in the logic model as well. Not only are
youth involved but many others (families; program providers and staff; schools; law
enforcement; courts; counties / communities) play roles in the JCPC flow.
With regard to outcomes, the logic model offers an opportunity to delineate beyond simplistic
thinking regarding outcomes to a break down of what is achieved in the short term, into the near
term, and beyond. This delineation works extremely well with JCPCs because it allows
illustration that youth involvement in JCPCs itself has immediate benefit because the youth are
engaged in positive rather than negative activities Such positive activities allow the youth to
develop competencies or skills that include but are not limited to academic, social, emotional,
and vocational skills. They also lead to developing positive relationships, a sense of
“connectedness” for youth to positive social institutions such as school, accountability toward
victims and society, and an enhancement of public safety. The medium term outcomes build on
these with negative behaviors being replaced by positive ones because of skill development and
all of the other short term outcomes being strengthened. Finally, the long term outcomes reflect
sustained behavior change and youth becoming productive citizens, both juvenile and adult
crime being reduced and public safety being enhanced, and costs associated with crime reduction
being reallocated to more prevention efforts in juvenile justice so that appropriate actions and
focus involve prevention and early intervention rather than court and deep-system costs.
External factors as offered by the logic model can impact the successful operation of JCPCs.
JCPCs have very little control over changes in society but are impacted by them and have to
adjust to operating given that changes represent constant forces that require adaptation. For
example, changes to the mental health system through its “reform” have resulted in the need for
mental health services in the JCPC arena given the needs of the target population. Changes in
technology have thrusted everyone, including JCPCs, into an information age in which it is
challenging to keep pace with limited resources. And changes in the budget reflected by this
continuation review report have created uncertainty for JCPC programs and have affected staff
and program operations.
36
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting
These Measures
Given the framework of the logic model, a move to meaningfully measuring program
performance is easily made as the rationale of processes and outcomes translates into the
evaluation frameworks of formative and summative evaluations. Formative evaluation
techniques focus on activities or processes; summative focus on outcomes. The Department of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention conducts both as it works to manage and administer
the JCPC approach in the State. The objectives of such management and administration include
need-directed planning using data, data-driven decisions, program development and
improvement, program defunding if warranted, and assessment of outcome achievement. The
Department carries out formative evaluation via its monitoring of performance and carries out
summative evaluation via annual analysis that is reported to the General Assembly as well as
employment of the meta-analysis supported Standard Program Evaluation Protocol.
Formative Evaluation: Monitoring JCPCs and Their Program Performance - Quality Assurance
Interventions
When the Department or a local JCPC determines that, through joint monitoring of local JCPC
grantees, a program is not producing desired results or is otherwise ineffective in addressing
program participant needs, a continuum of interventions may be implemented aimed at quality
assurance by either entity, depending on the severity or pervasiveness of the shortcomings or
ineffectiveness of the individual program. For example, if the curriculum of a JCPC funded
service provider is not producing improved academic performance, the Department area
consultant for the involved JCPC may work with the service provider to develop a Corrective
Action Plan that provides the program staff with appropriate technical assistance in this
important area of program operation. Alternately, if the grantee is having difficulty in managing
the financial aspects of its program, the local JCPC may bring program provider staff together
with staff from the County manager’s office skilled at assisting the program provider in this area
of intervention.
In cases where the local service provider is either unwilling or incapable of implementing their
JCPC grant funded program in accordance with its objectives, the local JCPC and the
Department’s area consultant work together to take actions appropriate to the individual
program. These interventions may include a variety of interventions in response to the severity
of the situation. These interventions may include but are not limited to more intensive and
frequent monitoring and on-site visitation, documenting instances of the inability to implement
important program components or curriculum, documenting non-responsiveness by the program
provider in carrying out the corrective actions in a Corrective Action Plan, inviting third-party
evaluators to observe the program and provide a report, and interviews of program participants
and/or their parents. If there is clear evidence over time of the inability or unwillingness of
program providers to implement the grant program in accordance with the provisions of the
Program Agreement (including program measurable objectives), then a recommendation to the
JCPC may be made (with appropriate documentation) that a grantee’s program funding be
discontinued immediately.
37
In FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, JCPCs made decisions that resulted in not continuing
funding of a total of 103 local service provider grants. The reasons for making these decisions
were varied (see Figure Two). Two decision categories align with situations discussed above:
lack of effectiveness (lack of program objectives met) and services did not meet JCPC policy
requirements (eg., poor management). In FY 2004-2005, 44 percent of those program grants
whose funding was not continued by JCPCs were discontinued due to either lack of effectiveness
or services did not meet JCPC policy requirements. Similarly, in FY 2005-2006, 34 percent of
those program grants whose funding was not continued were for either lack of effectiveness or
services did not meet JCPC policy requirements. In sum, the Department and local JCPCs
systematically monitoring and evaluate the effectiveness of JCPC funded grants and take
appropriate actions, including discontinuing funding, in cases where programs are ineffective
and/or simply did not meet the policy requirements in their grant Program Agreement with the
county JCPC.
An additional point should be made that when JCPC funded grants are suspected of possible
financial wrongdoing and those suspicions are brought to the Department’s attention, financial
reviews are immediately initiated to determine the validity of the suspicions. Since July, 2004,
five such reviews have been conducted by the Internal Audit section of the Department. Two of
the reviews resulted in suspended funding and requirements that accounting processes be
improved before funding eligibility would be restored, one required revamped policies and
procedures, one found no problems, and one warranted contacting the SBI due to suspected
criminal activity.
Figure Two: Factors Related to JCPC Grantee Funding Continuation Decisions
Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005
4%
13%
Lack of effectiveness
28%
Duplication of services
15%
Services did not meet JCPC
policy requirements
Communities needs better
served by another program
Program dissolved or did not
reapply
40%
n = 53
Lack of
effectiveness
2
Duplication
of services
7
Services did not meet
JCPC policy
requirements
8
Communities
needs better
served by another
program
21
Program
dissolved or
did not
reapply
15
38
Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006
Lack of effectiveness
10%
28%
10%
Duplication of services
Services did not meet JCPC
policy requirements
Communities needs better
served by another program
28%
24%
Program dissolved or did not
reapply
n =50
Lack of
effectiveness
5
Duplication
of services
5
Services did not meet
JCPC policy requirements
14
Communities
needs better
served by another
program
12
Program
dissolved or
did not
reapply
14
Formative Evaluation: Monitoring JCPCs and Their Program Performance - Effectiveness
Based on Meeting Measurable Objectives
Each year local JCPCs publish a Request for Proposals, based on risk and needs assessments for
at-risk and juvenile court-involved youth. In that Request for Proposals, specific program
development priorities are established for JCPC-funded programs for the coming fiscal year. In
each proposal received from a potential grantee, the grantee must establish measurable objectives
as performance indicators of success for their proposed program. For example, a program
grantee may establish a measurable objective of improving school attendance by 20 percent
among program participants, while another program grantee may include an objective to focuses
on decreasing subsequent offenses by program participants by 40 percent over the initial year of
the program’s operation. Once funded by the local JCPC, the service provider (grantee) provides
periodic measures of the success of its program via assessment of the program’s measurable
objectives.
In FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, the measurable objectives taken from the Program
Agreements for each local grantee yielded data on program effectiveness (program objectives not
met) in four major categories: school; public safety; family/peer relationships; and skill
development.
The local JCPC grantee program effectiveness outcomes based on ungrouped measurable
program objectives are depicted below in Figure Three. These data clearly demonstrate the high
level of effectiveness of these local JCPC grant services in addressing the four major categories
of program objectives. For example, in FY 2004-2005, 87 percent of the local program grantees
who targeted reduction in offending (n=342) met or exceeded their program objective with 89
percent of programs meeting or exceeding this objective in FY 2005-2006.
39
Figure Three: Local JCPC Program Grantee Percent of Measurable Objectives Met FY
2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006
FISCAL
YEAR 20042005 N =463
JCPC PROGRAM
AGREEMENT OBJECTIVE
Number
Program
Agreements
with Objective
FISCAL
YEAR 20052006 N = 495
Number
Met or
Exceed
Objective
% Meeting
or
Exceeding
Program
Objectives
Number
Program
Agreements
with Objective
Number Met
or Exceed
Objective
159
141
113
101
122
99
6
6
179
156
% Meeting
or
Exceeding
Program
Objectives
SCHOOL OBJECTIVES:
IMPROVE SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE
SUSPENDED
134
82
68
IMPROVE ACADEMICS
115
93
2
2
IMPROVE SCHOOL
BEHAVIOR
158
137
REDUCE OFFENDING
342
TUTORING
REDUCE OFFENDING FOR
SPECIFIC OFFENSE
VICTIM NEEDS
RESTITUTION
COMMUNITY SERVICE
COMPLETE SANCTIONS
112
84%
83%
81%
100%
89%
89%
81%
100%
87%
PUBLIC SAFETY OBJECTIVES:
298
87%
87%
371
330
53
47
48
40
83%
23
18
19
78%
29
24
51
83%
37
29
46
78%
85
61
63
72%
FAMILY/PEER RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES:
30
25
27
RETURN HOME
83%
91
71
120
PARENT RELATIONSHIPS
78%
38
33
57
PEER RELATIONSHIPS
87%
SKILL DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES:
26
21
40
ANGER MANAGEMENT
81%
SKILLS
50
41
77
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
82%
18
12
24
JOB SKILLS
67%
59
48
57
PROVIDE COUNSELING
81%
89%
12
39
36
52
89%
63%
76%
78%
83%
22
100
46
81%
83%
81%
32
80%
84%
83%
84%
65
20
48
Likewise, in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, 87 percent of local JCPC grantees who had a
major program objective focusing on improving school behavior met or exceeded their objective
for that year of operation. In summary, this consistent pattern of meeting or exceeding
individual JCPC grantee program objectives is further evidence of the effectiveness of local
JCPC program implementation in response to specific needs of youth identified by the county
JCPC.
In conclusion, the significantly high level of program effectiveness as demonstrated by program
outcomes objectives attainment is the result of many interrelated factors. Among them are
judicious decision making by local JCPCs to match youth needs to appropriate service providers
(grantees). Secondly, once funded Department area consultants work with these grantees on a
regular basis providing training and technical assistance ol strategies to improve programming
and other services provided. Third, Department staff and local JCPCs work in concert with
40
service providers through periodic monitoring to assess individual program effectiveness over
the course of the grant fiscal year.
Summative Evaluation: Analyzing JCPCs and Their Program Performance - Measures and
Outcomes Based on Statutory Provisions
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports about measures and
outcomes reflective of JCPC performance annually to the General Assembly. The Department is
required by G.S. 143B-519(b) (1) to report on performance related to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Reduced subsequent complaints
Reduced convictions for subsequent offenses
Reduced violations of terms of community supervision
Fulfilled restitution to victims
Increased parental accountability
Reduced use of alcohol and controlled substance
For these reports, the Department uses two data sources: the North Carolina Juvenile On-Line
Information Network (NC-JOIN) and the JCPC database Client Tracking. NC-JOIN is a secure
web-based application that manages the Department’s confidential juvenile information
regarding complaints, court actions, activities involving the supervision of juveniles under the
jurisdiction of the Department as well as information regarding admissions and supervision of
detained juveniles and juveniles in Youth Development Centers. NC-JOIN became operational
beginning in January, 2004. The basic structure of Client Tracking comes from a legacy system
developed many years ago. The data come from electronic files (diskettes and emailed datatables) as submitted by individual program providers to the Department’s area offices where the
data is compiled and transferred to a central database. The data in client tracking is based on
program admissions and terminations rather than individual juvenile records. Program staff are
responsible for updating the data records and submitting them in a timely fashion to the
Department.
Important to note is that Client Tracking is not currently integrated with NC-JOIN which creates
challenges for the conduct of summative evaluations. The Department’s initial plan for the
development of NC-JOIN included the “marriage” of these two databases; however, funding for
such an action has never been provided. Hurdles beyond the different structures of the two
databases would need to be overcome. Creating a database for both non court involved and court
involved youth, one which has the necessary security in place to keep juvenile information
confidential, requires the replacement of the current Client Tracking database with a secure webbased system that is designed to integrate with NC-JOIN. An additional hurdle involves the
current practice of JCPC funded program staff being the key input source for program data.
Most programs do not have the capacity to carry out this function in a way that meets evaluation
standards and practice.
41
With the above said about the databases, the performance measure outcomes which target the
JCPC annual evaluation were derived from analysis of JCPC data from Client Tracking as well
as juvenile court data from NC-JOIN. Again, these measures are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Reduced subsequent complaints
Reduced convictions for subsequent offenses
Reduced violations of terms of community supervision
Fulfilled restitution to victims
Increased parental accountability
Reduced use of alcohol and controlled substance
Using these measures was discussed with staff from Fiscal Research Division for addressing
“Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting Those
Measures” for the continuation review. Fiscal Research Division approved their use as well as
use of two of fiscal year data years (FY 2004 -2005 and FY 2005-2006). The specific
methodological approach for each measure is detailed in Appendix A: Methodology for the
Measurement of Performance Outcomes. Additional statistics which include analysis by program
component type are presented in Appendix B: Program Performance Data Outcome Tables.
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These
Measures: Performance Measure (a): Reduced Subsequent Complaints
An important outcome for JCPC programs is impact on public safety. One would anticipate that
if program objectives are met, then juveniles and their families would receive services that would
ultimately result in a reduction of subsequent delinquent complaints. To ensure that reductions in
subsequent complaints were not due to the “aging-out” of the sample from the juvenile system,
this analysis examined juveniles who were 15 and half years of age or younger at the time of
program completion with a six month follow-up. This sample represented about 65 percent of
JCPC terminations for these years. A termination occurs when a juvenile completes the program
or is withdrawn / removed from the JCPC program. . The results of the analysis are depicted
below in Figure Four: Reduction of Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs.
42
Reduction of Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs
10000
9450
8861
C ount of D elinquent C om plaints R eceived
9000
8000
FY 04-05 n = 24,578
FY 05-06 n = 23,078
7000
6000
5000
4589
4552
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FY 04-'05
FY 05-'06
Count of Delinquent Complaints Six Months Prior to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower
Count of Delinquent Complaints Six Months at or Subsequent to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower
Figure Four: Reduced Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs
For FY 2004-2005, there were 9,450 total delinquent complaints six months prior to program
completion date. There were 4552 total delinquent complaints six months at or following
program completion date. This constitutes a 51.8 percent reduction in subsequent delinquent
complaints. For FY 2005-2006, there were 8,861 total delinquent complaints six months prior to
program completion date. There were 4589 total delinquent complaints six months at or
following program completion date. This constitutes a 48.2 percent reduction in subsequent
delinquent complaints. These are positive results with reference to juvenile recidivism. The
Department is in the process of working with the Department of Justice to determine the analysis
of any adult offenses that may have occurred with the smaller sample of older juveniles. Results
will be provided when available.
43
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These
Measures: Performance Measure (b): Reduced Subsequent Convictions (Adjudications)
The reduction of subsequent convictions (adjudications) is another important outcome for JCPC
programs. This outcome reflects not only an impact on public safety, but also reflects the
prevention of juveniles from becoming more deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. For
the sake of clarity, the term “adjudication” 6 is the Juvenile Code’s logical equivalent to the
concept of an adult “conviction.” To ensure that reductions in subsequent delinquent
adjudications were not due to the “aging-out” of the sample from the juvenile system, this
analysis examined juveniles who were 15 and half years of age or younger at the time of
program completion with a six month follow-up. This sample represented about 65 percent of
JCPC terminations for these years. The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure Five.
Reduction of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs
4500
4075
4000
3722
3500
FY 04-05 n = 24,578
FY 05-06 n = 23,078
3000
Number
2500
of
Delinquent
Complaints
Adjudicated 2000
2146
2133
1500
1000
500
0
FY 04-'05
FY 05-'06
Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints Six Months Prior to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower
Count of Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints Six Months at or Subsequent to Program Termination for Juveniles Age 15.6 or lower
Figure Five: Reduced Adjudicated Delinquent Complaints for JCPC Programs
For FY 2004-2005, there were 4,075 total adjudicated delinquent complaints six months prior to
program completion date. There were 2,133 total adjudicated delinquent complaints six months
at or following program completion date. This constitutes a 47.6 percent reduction in subsequent
adjudicated delinquent complaints. For FY 2005-2006, there were 3,722 total adjudicated
6
“Adjudication” is described by North Carolina General Statute § 7B-2411.
Adjudication: “If the court
finds that the allegations in the petition have been proved as provided in G.S. 7B-2409, the court
shall so state. If the court finds that the allegations have not been proved, the court shall dismiss
the petition with prejudice and the juvenile shall be released from secure or nonsecure custody if
the juvenile is in custody.”
44
delinquent complaints six months prior to program completion date. There were 2,146 total
adjudicated delinquent complaints six months at or following program completion date. This
constitutes a 42.3 percent reduction in subsequent adjudicated delinquent complaints.
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These
Measures: Performance Measure (c): Reduced Violation of Terms of Community Supervision
As a performance outcome, JCPC programming should provide juveniles and their families with
the types of services that can improve adjustment while under supervision by juvenile court
counselors. Client Tracking data provides a measure of court progress that includes whether
violations of supervision occurred. 7 The results of the analysis are depicted in Figure Six.
Reduction in Violations of Community Supervision
60.0%
55.2% 55.4%
Percentage of Term inated C ases
50.0%
FY 04-05 n = 21,830
FY 05-06 n = 20,768
40.0%
34.1% 33.9%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
4.4%
4.2%
3.7%
4.0%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
Motion for Violation of
Court Order (Community
Supervision)
New Delinquency
Petition(s)
New Undisciplined
Petition(s)
FY 04-'05
No New Problems
No Problems at Referral
or Since
FY 05-'06
Figure Six: Reduced Violations of Community Supervision for JCPC Programs
For FY 2004-2005, only 4 percent of cases had Motion for violation of court order compared to
55 percent that had No New problems. Note 34 percent had No problems at referral or since. For
FY 2005-2006, only 4 percent of cases had Motion for violation of court order compared to 55
percent that had No New problems. Note 33.9 percent had No problems at referral or since.
7
Data current as of October 2007. There may be slight differences from previously published numbers which is attributable to
data additions and edits provided by program providers on a routine and on-going basis.
45
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These
Measures: Performance Measure (d): Fulfilled Restitutions to Victims
The fulfillment of restitution to victims is an important element of the juvenile justice system
that seeks to insure offender accountability and provide restorative justice for victims.
Restitution is also a statutorily prescribed dispositional alternative that should be utilized by the
Juvenile Court in the supervision of juvenile offenders. 8 JCPC programming is essential in
providing services to meet this need. Client Tracking identifies programs that provide this
service to the Court. Successful completion 9 of such programs would indicate a high level of
fulfillment for restitution for victims 10. The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure
Seven.
Fufillment of Restitution by JCPC Programs
FY 04-'05
FY 05-'06
90.0%
80.3%
78.9%
80.0%
70.0%
FY 04-05 n = 6051
FY 05-06 n = 5646
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
4.4%
2.3%
1.1%1.4%
7.1%
5.5%
3.3%2.9%
2.3%2.9%
4.3%
2.7%
0.2%0.2%
0.2%0.0%
0.0%0.0%
w
n
nk
no
U
et
io
n
om
pl
ul
C
ns
uc
ce
ss
f
U
Su
cc
es
sf
u
lc
om
co
m
pl
ct
or
y
pl
et
et
io
io
n
n
ay
w
ti s
fa
pa
r
by
un
a
en
ts
n
ac
tio
em
ov
ed
R
Sa
em
R
R
ov
ed
by
Fa
m
ily
co
u
re
rt
O
th
d
lo
ca
te
te
ci
pa
ar
ti
tp
no
D
id
er
0.0%
Figure Seven: Fulfilled Restitution to Victims in JCPC Programs
For FY 2004-2005, there were 6,051 terminations from restitution programs, where over 80
percent of cases completed the program successfully, which indicates evidence of a high level of
compensation to victims. For FY 2005-2006, there were 5,645 terminations from restitution
8
See North Carolina General Statute § 7B-2506
For termination reasons in the JCPC database, “Successful Completion” indicates a high level of client participation in program
activities and achievement of behavior improvement goals.
10
Data current as of October 2007. There may be slight differences from previously published numbers which is attributable to
data additions and edits provided by program providers on a routine and on-going basis.
9
46
programs where 78.9 percent of cases completed the program successfully, which indicates
evidence of a high level of compensation to victims.
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These
Measures: Performance Measure (e): Increased Parental Accountability
The involvement of parents in JCPC programming is crucial to increasing the accountability of
parents regarding the needs of their children. JCPC programming seeks to engage parents in the
provision of services to insure success. Many parents actively participate or engage from the
outset and are eager for their children and family to benefit from JCPC programs. Client
Tracking records the level of parental involvement during the program process as an outcome
measure. 11 This measure is the closest measure available to assess parental “accountability.”
Fiscal Research Division has accepted this as a shadow measure in annual reports that have been
submitted to the General Assembly. The results of the analysis are depicted below in Figure
Eight.
Parental Accountability (Involvement) in JCPC Programming
FY 04-05
FY05-'06
80%
73%
72%
70%
60%
FY 04-05 n = 21,810
FY 05-06 n = 20,768
50%
40%
30%
20%
16%
18%
11%
11%
10%
0%
Improved or Nonproblematic
Decreased or Unchanged
Unknown
Figure Eight: Parental Accountability (Involvement) in JCPC Programming
In FY 2004-2005, there were 21,810 cases that were terminated that reported this outcome
measure, out of which 73 percent reported that parental accountability (involvement) had either
improved or was non-problematic. In FY 2005-2006, there were 20,768 cases that were
terminated that reported this outcome measure, out of which 72 percent reported that parental
accountability (involvement) had either improved or was non-problematic
11
Data current as of October 2007. There may be slight differences from previously published numbers which is attributable to
data additions and edits provided by program providers on a routine and on-going basis.
47
Meaningful Measures of Program Performance and Whether the Program is Meeting These
Measures: Performance Measure (f): Reduced the Use of Alcohol and Substance Abuse
This performance measure is not very meaningful as only a small number (n=9) of JCPC
programs identify alcohol and drug treatment as their primary intervention. Substance abuse
treatment is typically provided through the Department of Health and Human Services, Division
of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services. In particular, North
Carolina's substance abuse initiative Managing Access for Juvenile Offender Resources and
Services (MAJORS), a joint effort of the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities,
and Substance Abuse Services (DMH/DD/SAS) and the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP), offers specialized substance abuse community treatment,
transitional care and coordination services in 31 judicial districts and 61 counties. 12 Additionally,
urinalysis, as a screening tool, is routinely used by juvenile court counselors as well as detention
and Youth Development Center staff. Since funding of JCPC programs seeks to avoid
duplication of services and provide the greatest leverage of public monies, substance abuse
programming is seldom funded. Although many JCPC programs may provide basic substance
abuse education as a supplemental service, the number of programs actually providing treatment
is limited. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has remained
committed to addressing the issue of substance abuse among at-risk and court-involved juveniles
by its on-going partnerships apart from JCPC programs.
Summative Evaluation: Analyzing JCPCs and Their Program Performance – Measures and
Outcomes Based on the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
With the passage of the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North Carolina became the second
state to mandate that only evidenced-based services for juvenile offenders would be eligible for
state funding. The Act required the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
to ensure that only effective programs receive State funds as well as conduct an evaluation of
programs funded through the State’s Juvenile Justice Prevention Councils (JCPCs). To help meet
this mandate, the Department contracted with Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell and Dr. Mark W.
Lipsey and his staff at Vanderbilt University’s Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology
to develop a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of JCPC funded delinquency
prevention programs. Individualized program evaluations and model programs were considered
as approaches but not selected because of expense and the inability to replicate in real world
settings. The Department, therefore, worked with Howell and Lipsey on an approach termed the
Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) 13. This innovative evaluation approach
involves extracting program principles or guidelines for effective interventions from evaluation
research and applying them to program practice. This strategy, termed meta-analysis, does not
require that each program replicate all aspects of an effective brand name “model” program with
consistent high fidelity or that regular program outcome evaluations be undertaken to provide
feedback on the effectiveness of the individual program. The key assumption of this approach is
that incorporation of a suitable selection of those features into the practice of routine programs
12
http://www.ncmajors.org/
See Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., & Tidd, S. T. (July 2007). The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
(SPEP): A Practical Approach to Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice Programs in North Carolina, Final
Evaluation Report. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology.
13
48
will ensure effectiveness. In practice, this approach is designed to effectively provide program
development as well as formative and summative evaluation information to be used with other
data sources in making informed decisions about programs for at-risk and adjudicated youth.
How the Tool Works
Over the past several decades, a great deal of research has accumulated on the effectiveness of
juvenile delinquency interventions. However, this information is spread across a wide number of
books, articles, and research reports. Lipsey has been a pioneer in using a research technique
called meta-analysis which allows this diverse data to be combined and analyzed quantitatively.
While there is still much to be learned about how to effectively address juvenile delinquency,
meta-analysis allows us to summarizes what we currently know and use it to evaluate and
improve existing programs.
The SPEP organizes this information into estimates of the relative effectiveness of ten broad
types of juvenile justice programs for prevention and court supervised youth. The SPEP itemizes
the characteristics of effective programs and assigns points to specific program characteristics
according to their relationship to recidivism outcomes in the available research (Howell &
Lipsey, 2004a, 2004b). Different ratings and point allocations are defined for different programs,
classified and scored according to the primary and supplemental services they provide, the
amount of service provided (measured in terms of frequency, duration, and proportion of clients
that receive them), and the characteristics of the clients that receive specific services.” Individual
programs receive a SPEP Score that is based on both the type of program as well as how well it
matches the optimal mix of characteristics described above. The SPEP provides general
information on the expected effectiveness of a specific program as well as important information
on ways in which a program could be made more effective. Figure Nine provides a conceptual
illustration of the approach. 14
Important to note is that the needs of the youth served by a JCPC, as well as resource constraints,
and the mix of services currently available in the community are important factors that impact
the selection of specific program types, not just the maximum potential SPEP score.
Additionally, not all programs can be rated by the SPEP methodology. There are some program
types for which too little data is available with which to currently develop a SPEP. JCPCs fund a
number of important services that, while not having a specific therapeutic function, none the less
serve important roles (i.e., psychological assessment and emergency shelter care). These
services do not have SPEP scores. Data from the first full year of operation of the Standardized
Program Evaluation Protocol system (FY 2006-2007) will be shared with Fiscal Research staff
prior to the start of the legislative session.
14
See also Howell, J. C. & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). A practical approach to evaluating and improving juvenile justice
programs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 55(1), 35-48
49
Figure Nine: Program Improvement
As described earlier, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention selected
SPEP as a mechanism for evaluation because other options were not doable given limited
capacity and the real world settings of programs. The Department’s work with SPEP has
highlighted its value in program development and therefore has perhaps more future application
in formative evaluations than summative ones unless further resources become available to
develop mechanisms for determining SPEP ratings for those JCPC component services for which
no SPEP ratings instruments have been developed. SPEP rating instruments have been
developed only for those services for which a sufficient research base exists. Additional
resources will be needed to move this evaluation system into a more complete response to the
range of programs included in JCPC funded grants.
Summary and Conclusion
Section two of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review offers information
about “meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these
measures.” The section begins by offering a logic model to frame the JCPC approach and
includes information that reflects both formative and summative evaluations of program
performance and the meeting of measures related to program performance. The evidence of
JCPC program success ranges from actions that are taken, including the defunding of JCPC
50
programs when programs do not operate as they should, to the successful achievement of
targeted program objectives and legislatively identified objectives. It also offers information
about SPEP, the Department’s effort to evaluate JCPC programs using research and evidencebased practices.
The information offered in this section specifically shows that, working collaboratively,
Department staff and local JCPCs have monitored JCPC program performance by carrying out
systematic interventions in response to varying levels of program effectiveness. These
interventions range from providing additional training and technical assistance to increased
intensity of program monitoring and evaluation, to JCPCs making decisions to discontinue
program funding in cases in which service providers were either unwilling or incapable to
respond to provisions in Corrective Action Plans. Further, this section shows a consistent
pattern of JCPC funded programs in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 that demonstrated a high
level of attainment of individual program measurable objectives in four areas matched to local
risk and needs of at-risk and court involved youth in counties throughout the State. In addition,
the data presented also documents significant longitudinal progress (FY 2004-2005 and FY
2005-2006) by local JCPC programs using six meaningful outcome measures required by statute
to demonstrate program effectiveness. Finally, the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
was described as a tool used by Department staff and local JCPCs to enhance program
development and program effectiveness evaluation and to efficiently meet the statutory
requirement that JCPCs “fund evidence-based programs only.”
Overall, this section of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s
continuation review offers evidence of significant accomplishments in demonstrating program
effectiveness by JCPC programs. Youth are learning skills, changing behaviors, and changing
life styles. Victims are being compensated, and public safety is being enhanced. Cost savings
related to reduced recidivism can be projected from what is offered. All of this is especially
notable given that there has been essentially flat funding for JCPCs from 1999-2007. This lack of
funding has extended to the Department, deterring its ability to improve its databases, program
monitoring, and technical assistance offerings and to further implement the Standardized
Program Evaluation Protocol as a formative as well as summative evaluation tool for JCPC
funded programs.
51
Appendix A: Methodology for the Measurement of Performance Outcomes.
Performance Measure #1:
REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS
In order to determine a percentage reduction, a baseline must first be established against which to
measure results. The comparison baseline should be for an equal period of elapsed time so that
differences are not attributable to differences in length of time measured. The sample group was
chosen from program participants that were 15 and a half or younger at the time of program
completion with six month follow-up from the time of program completion to determine any
subsequent post-program offending. This sample was selected with a six month follow-up so that
any reduction in subsequent complaints would not be attributable to attrition into the adult
system. For this baseline, the total number of delinquent complaints per program participant for
six months prior to program completion date by program type was calculated. For subsequent
complaints, the total number of delinquent complaints per program participant for six months
following or at program completion date by program type was calculated.
Note that this approach measures the outcome for each program. Hence, in both previous and
subsequent measures of juvenile offending, the complaints that occurred before and/or after the
program completion date are the unit of measurement. The same juvenile may be in more than
one program and have their same complaint history compared to more than one program
completion date
Reduction of complaints looks at percentage change from a baseline, which is not the same as a
simple measure of recidivism where the percentage of participants with new charges is
measured. In instances where there are small samples and an increase in subsequent complaints
is measured, it is not advisable to conclude that this is always a measure of poor program
performance due to a limited sample. In such cases, it would be preferable to simply look at the
number of program participants versus a count of juveniles with complaints.
For data sources, we extracted JCPC program terminations that occurred in the following Fiscal
Years: FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. Each Fiscal Year of program terminations was placed into its
own data table to capture individuals who completed JCPC programs. For complaint data, all
complaints entered into NCJOIN with an offense date for two calendars years into which each
Fiscal Year of JCPC program completions could be measured were extracted 15. For example,
Fiscal Year 05-06 data for JCPC program completions was measured against complaints entered
into NC-JOIN with an offense date that ranged from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006. This
would provide a minimum of six months for an offense to occur before or after the JCPC
program termination date.
15
JCPC termination data was extracted from the research server in October 2007. Data additions and edits are
submitted by program providers on a routine and on-going basis. Hence data extracted or reported at different times
may reflect differences attributable to this process.
52
The JCPC data was matched into the NC-JOIN data where First name, Last name and Date of
Birth were equal. This level of exact matching lessened the possibility of false matches. While
there are certainly instances where matching would not occur due to spelling or other
confounding circumstance, the sample size was large enough to have confidence in the results
and it appears unlikely that there were any systemic matching issues that would lessen
confidence in results. The matching process and logic used to derive the data for both prior
complaints and subsequent complaints is depicted below for the FY 05-06 sample. The same
process was used for FY 04-05 sample.
53
Performance Measure #2
REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS (ADJUDICATIONS)
The same process was used as measures for subsequent complaints in Performance Measure # 1.
However results were limited to only those complaints that had been adjudicated (convicted),
disposed (sentenced) or transferred to adult court as coded in the offense status ID in the NCJOIN tables. Note that adjudication is the functional equivalent of “conviction” when referring to
the juvenile court process. “Adjudication” is described by G.S. § 7B-2411: “If the court finds
that the allegations in the petition have been proved as provided in G.S. 7B-2409, the court shall
so state. If the court finds that the allegations have not been proved, the court shall dismiss the
petition with prejudice and the juvenile shall be released from secure or nonsecure custody if the
juvenile is in custody.”
Performance Measure # 3
REDUCE VIOLATIONS OF TERMS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
This analysis used Court Progress Measure from Client Tracking System. This outcome measure
is coded in the Client Tracking System following the termination of a case from a program. The
coding choices for this outcome measure are as follows:
• No problems at referral or since,
• No new problems,
• Motion for violation of court order,
54
•
•
New undisciplined petition(s),
New delinquency petition(s).
Cases that are coded as having “No new problems” indicate the existence of previous court activity. The
percentage of terminated cases with “Motions for Violations of Court Order” is compared to the
percentage of terminated cases with “No new problems.”
Performance Measure # 4
FUFILL RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS
For this analysis, data from the Client Tracking System was used to examine the termination
reason for cases completing JCPC programs designated as restitution programs. Successful
completion of the program was selected as the unit of measure since this reporting requirement
seeks to measure the fulfillment of this obligation. For termination reasons in the Client Tracking
System database 16,
“Successful Completion” indicates a high level of client participation in program activities and
achievement of behavior improvement goals.”
This analysis reports the percentage of cases successfully completing restitution programs.
Program Performance Measure # 5
INCREASE PARENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY
The Client Tracking System records Parental Involvement as an outcome measure for terminated
cases. The coding choices for this measure are as follows:
• No problems at referral or since,
• Significant improvement,
• Some improvement,
• Unchanged,
• Decreased,
• Unknown
Analysis was made of this measure on terminated cases reporting results for this outcome. For
ease of interpretation, coding items were collapsed into three measures:
1. “Improved or Nonproblematic” combined the results of the following Client
Tracking Codes: No problems at referral or since, Significant improvement, Some
improvement.
2. “Decreased or Unchanged” combined the results of the following Client Tracking
Codes: Unchanged, Decreased.
3. “Unknown” remained as coded in Client Tracking
Full results by Client Tracking Code and Program Component are reported in Appendix XX
Program Performance Data Outcome Tables.
16
See http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/resources/jcpc/resources/instructions_clientrackingform.pdf
55
Appendix B: Program Performance Data Outcome Tables 17
Performance Measure #1:
REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS
DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
FOR FY 04-'05 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND COMPONENT TYPE
Count of
Delinquent
Complaints Six
Months Prior to
Program
Termination for
Juveniles Age
15.6 or lower
Count of Delinquent
Complaints Six
Months at or
Subsequent to
Program Termination
for Juveniles Age
15.6 or lower
Subtotal
1928
1928
591
591
-69.35
-69.35
Subtotal
885
5
167
28
2
1087
584
4
95
1
2
686
-34.01
N Size < 50
-43.11
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
-36.89
Subtotal
953
953
752
752
-21.09
-21.09
Subtotal
85
79
2
2
337
505
80
108
4
2
226
420
-5.88
36.71
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
-32.94
-16.83
359
3229
573
4161
166
1216
247
1629
-53.76
-62.34
-56.89
-60.85
188
244
10
32
229
154
160
2
13
95
-18.09
-34.43
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
-58.52
Program Component Type
ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Psychological Assessments
CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Home Based Family Counseling
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Sexual Offender Treatment
COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS
Juvenile Structured Day
RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS
Group Home Care
Runaway Shelter Care
Specialized Foster Care
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Restitution
Teen Court
Subtotal
STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS
Guided Growth Program
Interpersonal Skill Building
Life Skills Training
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
% Change
17
JCPC termination data was extracted from the research server in October 2007. Data additions and edits are submitted by
program providers on a routine and on-going basis. Hence data extracted or reported at different times may reflect differences
attributable to this process.
56
Prevention Services
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Subtotal
TOTAL
3
108
2
816
9450
2
47
1
474
4552
N Size < 50
-56.48
-50.00
-41.91
-51.83
DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
FOR FY 05-'06 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND COMPONENT TYPE
Count of
Count of
Delinquent
Complaints Six
Delinquent
Complaints Six
Months at or
Months Prior to
Subsequent to
Program
Program
Termination for
Termination for
Juveniles Age
Juveniles Age 15.6
or lower
15.6 or lower
% Change
Program Component Type
ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Psychological Assessments
1637
541
-66.95
Subtotal
1637
541
-66.95
CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Counseling
822
532
-35.28
Crisis Counseling
29
12 N Size <50
Home Based Family Counseling
209
135
-35.41
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
12
21 N Size <50
Sexual Offender Treatment
6
1 N Size <50
Subtotal
1078
701
-34.97
COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS
Juvenile Structured Day
892
576
-35.43
Subtotal
892
576
-35.43
RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS
Group Home Care
102
46
-54.90
Runaway Shelter Care
49
72 N Size <50
Specialized Foster Care
1
10 N Size <50
Temporary Foster Care
0
14 N Size <50
Temporary Shelter Care
304
249
-18.09
Subtotal
456
391
-14.25
RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
460
224
-51.30
Restitution
2989
1386
-53.63
Teen Court
413
207
-49.88
Subtotal
3862
1817
-52.95
STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS
Experiential Skill Building
8
1 N Size <50
Guided Growth Program
200
95
-52.50
Interpersonal Skill Building
390
240
-38.46
Mentoring
30
24 N Size <50
Parent/Family Skill Building
240
126
-47.50
Prevention Services
8
21 N Size <50
57
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Subtotal
TOTAL
54
6
936
8861
52
4
563
4589
-3.70
N Size <50
-39.85
-48.21
Performance Measure #2
REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS (ADJUDICATIONS)
ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS FOR
FY 05-'06 TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND COMPONENT TYPE
Program Component Type
ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Psychological Assessments
Subtotals
CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Home Based Family Counseling
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Sexual Offender Treatment
Subtotals
COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS
Juvenile Structured Day
Subtotals
RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS
Group Home Care
Runaway Shelter Care
Specialized Foster Care
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
Subtotals
RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Restitution
Teen Court
Subtotals
STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS
Experiential Skill Building
Guided Growth Program
Interpersonal Skill Building
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
Prevention Services
Count of Adjudicated
Delinquent Complaints
Six Months at or
Subsequent to Program
Termination for Juveniles
Age 15.6 or lower
% Change]
865
865
272
272
-68.55
-68.55
372
12
96
4
5
489
250
6
54
9
0
319
-32.80
N Size <50
-43.75
N Size <50
N Size <50
-34.76
393
393
252
252
-35.88
-35.88
52
28
0
0
152
232
26
34
4
4
103
171
-50.00
N Size <50
N Size <50
N Size <50
-32.24
-26.29
157
1077
66
1300
105
672
67
844
-33.12
-37.60
1.52
-35.08
5
100
178
14
117
4
0
46
131
9
64
7
N Size <50
-54.00
-26.40
N Size <50
-45.30
N Size <50
Count of Adjudicated
Delinquent Complaints Six
Months Prior to Program
Termination for Juveniles
Age 15.6 or lower
58
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Subtotals
TOTAL JCPC PROGRAMS
20
5
443
3722
27
4
288
2146
N Size <50
N Size <50
-34.99
-42.34
ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FOR FY 04-'05
TERMINATIONS AT SIX MONTHS BY SERVICE AND PROGRAM TYPE
Program Component Type
ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Psychological Assessments
Subtotal
CLINICAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Home Based Family Counseling
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Sexual Offender Treatment
Subtotal
COMMUNITY DAY PROGRAMS
Juvenile Structured Day
Subtotal
RESIDENTIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS
Group Home Care
Runaway Shelter Care
Specialized Foster Care
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
Subtotal
RESTORATIVE PROGRAMS
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Restitution
Teen Court
Subtotal
STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES PROGRAMS
Guided Growth Program
Interpersonal Skill Building
Life Skills Training
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
Prevention Services
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Count of Adjudicated
Delinquent Complaints
Six Months Prior to
Program Termination
for Juveniles Age 15.6
or lower
Count of Adjudicated
Delinquent Complaints
Six Months at or
Subsequent to Program
Termination for Juveniles
Age 15.6 or lower
% Change]
1055
1055
296
296
-71.94
-71.94
411
3
95
12
1
522
304
3
50
1
1
359
-26.03
N Size < 50
-47.37
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
-31.23
479
479
344
344
-28.18
-28.18
48
36
0
1
161
246
34
47
2
1
81
165
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
-49.69
-32.93
96
1223
90
1409
70
587
107
764
-27.08
-52.00
18.89
-45.78
82
120
1
14
92
2
51
2
68
63
1
6
52
0
15
0
-17.07
-47.50
N Size < 50
N Size < 50
-43.48
N Size < 50
-70.59
N Size < 50
59
Subtotal
364
4075
TOTAL
205
2133
-43.68
-47.66
Performance Measure # 3
REDUCE VIOLATIONS OF TERMS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
New Delinquency Petition(s)
New Undisciplined Petition(s)
No New Problems
No Problems at Referral or Since
Grand Total
Program Component Type
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Group Home Care
Guided Growth Program
Home Based Family Counseling
Interpersonal Skill Building
Juvenile Structured Day
Life Skills Training
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
Prevention Services
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Psychological Assessments
Restitution
Runaway Shelter Care
Sexual Offender Treatment
Specialized Foster Care
Teen Court
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Grand Total
Percentages
Motion for Violation of Court
Order
COURT PROGRESS FY 04-'05
192
2
27
37
58
54
106
1
20
6
29
0
2
0
330
4
4
6
27
0
42
10
0
957
4%
164
2
19
36
28
52
53
1
31
2
23
0
0
0
286
3
2
3
75
0
32
3
0
815
4%
132
1
11
29
13
46
102
0
26
7
22
0
1
0
67
17
0
10
20
0
21
19
0
544
2%
1841
9
84
360
258
495
988
8
540
62
389
4
41
0
4884
131
30
14
1323
14
446
128
11
12060
55%
1021
0
60
820
64
946
542
0
1010
201
200
172
0
0
487
234
7
1
1080
1
245
363
0
7454
34%
3350
14
201
1282
421
1593
1791
10
1627
278
663
176
44
0
6054
389
43
34
2525
15
786
523
11
21830
100%*
*percentages are rounded
COURT PROGRESS FY 05-'06
60
Motion for Violation of Court
Order
New Delinquency Petition(s)
New Undisciplined Petition(s)
No New Problems
No Problems at Referral or Since
Grand Total
Program Component Type
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Experiential Skill Building
Group Home Care
Guided Growth Program
Home Based Family Counseling
Interpersonal Skill Building
Juvenile Structured Day
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
Prevention Services
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Psychological Assessments
Restitution
Runaway Shelter Care
Sexual Offender Treatment
Specialized Foster Care
Teen Court
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Grand Total
Percentages
201
5
0
22
47
55
52
60
9
6
33
0
2
0
295
6
6
13
25
0
20
15
0
872
4%
139
3
0
12
49
62
73
58
24
2
21
4
5
5
285
4
1
4
47
1
24
8
0
831
4%
141
0
0
12
26
23
44
107
25
2
19
3
4
0
61
8
0
1
21
0
7
13
0
517
2%
1668
23
1
88
284
237
736
832
614
57
477
11
43
0
4548
111
37
16
1250
3
384
59
23
11502
55%
1113
3
14
45
524
78
782
547
918
323
174
239
0
0
456
190
7
1
1082
2
176
372
0
7046
34%
3262
34
15
179
930
455
1687
1604
1590
390
724
257
54
5
5645
319
51
35
2425
6
611
467
23
20768
100%*
*percentages are rounded
Performance Measure # 4
61
Percentage
Results FY 05-'06
Percentage
Restitution Program Outcome
Did not participate
Family relocated
Other
Removed by court action
Removed by parents
Runaway
Satisfactory completion
Successful completion
Unsuccessful Completion
Unknown
Total
Results FY 04-'05
FUFILL RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS
269
66
142
199
10
13
332
4858
162
0
6051
4.45%
1.09%
2.35%
3.29%
0.17%
0.21%
5.49%
80.28%
2.68%
0.00%
100.00%
132
81
164
163
1
9
398
4453
243
1
5645
2.34%
1.43%
2.91%
2.89%
0.02%
0.16%
7.05%
78.88%
4.30%
0.02%
100.00%
Program Performance Measure # 5
INCREASE PARENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY
No problems at referral or
since
Significant improvement
Some improvement
Unchanged
Unknown
Grand Total
Program Component Type
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Group Home Care
Guided Growth Program
Home Based Family Counseling
Interpersonal Skill Building
Juvenile Structured Day
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
Prevention Services
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Psychological Assessments
Decreased
Parental Accountability (Involvement) FY 04-05
30
0
5
8
6
10
30
51
0
9
3
1
0
777
0
19
682
29
885
553
1019
77
122
134
0
0
403
5
32
54
123
94
89
95
13
117
0
5
0
911
5
59
198
162
247
441
166
73
270
1
24
0
828
4
80
217
97
168
391
150
97
109
0
14
0
383
0
6
132
4
191
287
146
18
36
38
0
0
3332
14
201
1291
421
1595
1791
1627
278
663
176
44
0
62
Restitution
Runaway Shelter Care
Sexual Offender Treatment
Specialized Foster Care
Teen Court
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Grand Total
Percentages
77
10
0
0
13
0
7
1
0
261
0%
3476
4
13
1
1651
0
224
441
3
10110
46%
272
10
5
15
287
0
54
12
0
1685
8%
893
186
15
13
259
10
220
40
0
4193
19%
585
178
10
5
194
4
265
17
4
3417
16%
748
1
0
0
121
1
16
12
4
2144
10%
6051
389
43
34
2525
15
786
523
11
21810
100.0%*
*percentages are rounded
No problems at referral or since
Significant improvement
Some improvement
Unchanged
Unknown
Grand Total
Program Component Type
Counseling
Crisis Counseling
Experiential Skill Building
Group Home Care
Guided Growth Program
Home Based Family Counseling
Interpersonal Skill Building
Juvenile Structured Day
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
Mentoring
Parent/Family Skill Building
Prevention Services
Psychoeducation/Supportive Counseling
Psychological Assessments
Restitution
Runaway Shelter Care
Sexual Offender Treatment
Specialized Foster Care
Teen Court
Temporary Foster Care
Temporary Shelter Care
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
Vocational Development
Decreased
Parental Accountability (Involvement) FY 05-06
38
1
1
4
14
10
17
40
48
5
6
0
2
0
53
5
0
1
11
0
6
2
0
735
11
14
32
391
44
810
575
1135
207
116
187
0
0
3571
20
10
0
1585
4
169
358
15
475
2
0
35
76
131
119
77
119
3
177
0
5
0
279
8
4
5
176
0
41
15
0
756
10
0
45
121
178
237
322
111
25
254
3
17
0
642
146
17
13
279
1
163
38
1
863
5
0
61
125
83
199
348
102
29
149
14
30
5
528
140
19
16
193
1
219
39
2
395
5
0
2
203
9
305
242
75
121
22
53
0
0
572
0
1
0
181
0
13
15
5
3262
34
15
179
930
455
1687
1604
1590
390
724
257
54
5
5645
319
51
35
2425
6
611
467
23
63
Grand Total
Percentages
264
1%
9989
48%
1747
8%
3379
16%
3170
15%
2219
11%
20768
100%
*percentages are rounded
Program Performance Measure # 6
REDUCE THE USE OF ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
This performance measure would not be very meaningful as only a small number of JCPC
programs identify alcohol and drug treatment as their primary intervention (n=9).
Substance abuse treatment is typically provided through the Department of Health and Human
Services, Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services.
In particular, the North Carolina's substance abuse initiative Managing Access for Juvenile
Offender Resources and Services (MAJORS), a joint effort of the Division of Mental Health,
Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services (DMH/DD/SAS) and the Department
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP), offers specialized substance abuse
community treatment, transitional care and coordination services in 31 judicial districts and 61
counties. 18 In addition to this, substance abuse services are sometimes obtained by other private
providers and medical providers. Additionally, urinalysis as a screening tool is routinely used by
juvenile court counselors as well as detention and Youth Development Center staff. Since
funding of JCPC programs seeks to avoid duplication of services and provide the greatest
leverage of public monies, substance abuse programming is seldom funded. The Department of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) has remained committed to addressing the
issue of substance abuse among at-risk and court-involved juveniles by its on-going partnerships
apart from Juvenile Crime Prevention Programs.
Nationally, we know from a recent June 2007 special report on teens, drugs, and violence by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy that: “(1) teens who use drugs are more likely to engage
in violent behavior, steal, abuse other drugs, and join gangs; (2) early use of marijuana is a
warning sign for later gang involvement; (3) teens who participate in gangs are more likely to be
involved in violent acts and drug use; (4) structured activities and volunteering help keep teens
away from drugs; and (5) parents are the most powerful influence on their kids when it comes to
using illicit drugs.” 19 According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (National Institutes of
Health), a 2006 study found that 41% of 8th graders and 75% of 12th have tried alcohol. 20 In
North Carolina for Calendar Year 2006, 42% of Youth at Disposition in Juvenile Court had
evidence of substance abuse requiring further assessment or treatment 21
18
http://www.ncmajors.org/
Source material available in National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstract at:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=240686
20
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/underage_drinking.htm
Monitoring the Future Survey
Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, & Schulenberg JE. (2006). Monitoring the Future national results on
adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2005.* (NIH Publication No. 05-5726). Bethesda, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
21
2006 Annual Report, North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/resources/pdf_documents/annual_report_2006.pdf
19
64
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
RATIONALE FOR CONTINUING, REDUCING, OR ELIMINATING FUNDING
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The third section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide “the
rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.” The Department offers this section
in response and will approach it in terms of providing a rationale for continuing and increasing
funding rather that “continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.” The starting point for this
rationale is prevention and how it plays a role in the juvenile justice system that grew out of
reform in 1998. The rationale will also include review of the statute generated from reform
which is the basis for the existence of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention and Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs). Finally, it will provide data in
support of continuing and increasing funding; for the latter, evidence will be presented that
indicates that the current level of funding for JCPCs is inadequate and that funding needs to be
increased to meet the needs of an increasing juvenile population, to enhance program
accountability, and to realize cost savings.
The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils: Prevention
An excellent explanation of the rationale of prevention as it relates to JCPCs is offered by Dr.
James C. Howell, a noted juvenile justice expert who previously worked at the federal Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and is a current resident of North Carolina. Howell
offers some research context and then connects it to JCPCs:
The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile
Offenders (Wilson & Howell, 1993) was developed at the federal Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the early 1990s as a guide for
state and local juvenile justice reforms. The Comprehensive Strategy is a twotiered system for responding proactively to juvenile delinquency (see Figure
65
One). In the first tier, delinquency prevention and early intervention programs are
relied on to prevent delinquency and reduce the likelihood of delinquent career
development among child delinquents and at risk children. If these efforts fail,
then the juvenile justice system, the second tier, must provide graduated sanctions
and more intensive and costly services for delinquents and especially those
offenders with a high likelihood of becoming serious, violent, and chronic
offenders. A continuum of sanctions and services is needed for them that reduce
this likelihood while protecting the public.
Figure One
NC’s Comprehensive Strategy
for Juvenile Delinquency
Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending
Prevention
Target Population: At-Risk Youth
Programs for
All Youth
>
Programs for Youth at
Greatest Risk
Immediate
> Intervention >
Graduated Sanctions
Target Population: Delinquent Youth
Intermediate
Sanctions
Community
> Confinement >
Training
Schools
>
Aftercare
Preventing youth from becoming
Improving the juvenile justice system
delinquent by focusing prevention
response to delinquent offenders
programs on at-risk youth
through a system of graduated
sanctions and a continuum of
treatment alternatives
The Comprehensive Strategy framework consists of six levels of program
interventions and sanctions, moving from least to most restrictive:
•
•
•
•
•
•
prevention of delinquency by reducing risk and increasing protection among all
youth;
early intervention with youth at greatest risk, pre-delinquents, and child
delinquents and their families;
immediate intervention for first-time delinquent offenders (misdemeanors and
nonviolent felonies) and non serious repeat offenders;
intermediate sanctions for first-time serious or violent offenders, including
intensive supervision for SVC offenders;
secure corrections (youth development centers in NC) for serious, violent, chronic
offenders; and
aftercare.
66
The General Assembly incorporated the Comprehensive Strategy framework into
the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998. State officials, juvenile justice advocacy
groups, and legislators saw it as a way to address two policy concerns. First, they
wanted to preserve youths' futures by targeting prevention and early intervention
programs on youths at high risk of entering the juvenile justice system or further
penetrating the system. Second, they wanted to increase public safety by targeting
serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders for more restrictive sanctions (i.e.,
youth development center placement).
This first of these two goals is the overall mandate for the prevention component
of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s
Comprehensive Strategy. The JCPCs are charged with developing comprehensive
delinquency prevention plans; they also fund and monitor programs, ensuring that
a wide variety of services and dispositional options are available. Virtually all
county-level prevention programs for high-risk youth and early intervention
programs for court-referred delinquents are funded through the JCPCs because of
their statutory mandate to target youths at high risk of entering the juvenile justice
system or further penetrating the system. Thus, JCPC programs bridge the two
Comprehensive Strategy components, in serving youths who have not yet become
officially involved in delinquency and also youths who have been adjudicated
delinquent (see Figure One). These are two groups with elevated risk of further
penetrating the juvenile justice system and perhaps later placement in the State’s
secure youth development centers. In fact, the JCPCs are prohibited from funding
prevention programs for all youth; that is, primary prevention programs.
The Department has developed a Strategic Planning Tool that JCPCs use to map
the flow of juveniles within each county’s juvenile justice system. It is divided
into sections that correspond to the dispositional levels in the juvenile justice
system (e.g., juveniles at intake, diversion plans, approved for court, adjudicated,
YDC commitments). Electronic client tracking data for prevention clients and
NC-JOIN tracking data for court-referred youth show offenders’ level of system
penetration. The Strategic Planning Tool also enables the JCPCs to determine the
number of youths that need services in each of the levels in the system.
Recidivism data, dispositions, and placement information then informs the
Department of its success in meeting the statutory mandate.
In sum, the JCPC programs in North Carolina play a critical role in the overall
functioning of the State’s juvenile justice system. These programs serve to keep
youths out of the system by providing services to children who are at elevated risk
of delinquent behavior, or minor delinquency involvement, and possibly
becoming future clients of the State’s youth development centers. Without this
prevention component, the State would have more offenders on formal probation
and also committed to the youth development centers.
Howell’s commentary provides a rationale for continuing JCPC funding given its critical role in
the larger juvenile justice system. He not only explains well the framework in which prevention
67
and therefore the work of JCPCs lie, he also asserts that the absence of this funding will lead to
more youth penetrating the court system and youth development centers and, as a result,
incurring the costs associated with such. His comments are not only about prevention but about
the investment that JCPC funding represents.
The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils: Juvenile Justice Reform and Statute
Juvenile justice reform in 1998 generated two state statutes, G.S. 143B-543 and G.S. 143B-550,
which provide the foundations for the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention and JCPCs and clearly state the intent of the General Assembly to provide JCPCs to
prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent and to provide a system of funding
for the JCPCs that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic
prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their communities. Together, these two
statutes provide a clear foundation for a continuum of prevention and intervention programs and
services in counties statewide that operate to maintain public safety and to address the various
needs of at-risk youth. In administering this state-local partnership, each county JCPC must be
provided with an adequate funding base that allows that continuum of programs and services to
operate effectively in addressing youth needs and in addressing public safety issues.
G.S. 143B-550 indicates that “the legislative intent of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council is
to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent.” These prevention efforts by
the Department are to be implemented, according to the General Statute, by:
•
•
•
•
•
providing community-based alternatives to youth development centers;
providing community-based delinquency and substance abuse prevention strategies and
programs;
providing non-institutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and
the juveniles;
planning and organizing programs and services at the community level and by
developing those programs in partnership with the State (see Program Description
section of this report);
Planning efforts which include representation from particular positions of leadership
within the local county and from its citizenry.
G.S. 143B-550 provides the legal foundation for the funding of the JCPCs in each of the State’s
100 counties. This law further articulates that the formula that shall be developed for JCPC
funding ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic prevention and
alternative services to juveniles in their communities.
The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils: JCPC Program Data
Each year the General Assembly requires the JCPC Annual Performance Report to respond to six
statute-based outcomes to assist in determining the level of effectiveness of JCPC funded
programs and services. Data presented in response to section two of the JCPC Continuation
68
Review provision presents convincing evidence of the effectiveness of JCPC programs and
services that statewide are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
reducing subsequent court complaints,
reducing violations of terms of community supervision,
reducing convictions for subsequent offenses,
fulfilling restitution to victims,
increasing parental accountability and involvement, and.
reducing the use of alcohol and controlled substances.
In addition, Figure Two summarizes the number of JCPC programs that met or exceeded their
measurable program objectives in FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. Ranging from a low of 63 percent to
a high of 100 percent, the data evidence program effectiveness with reference to meeting
objectives and therefore stand as part of the rationale for continued funding.
Figure Two: Local JCPC Program Grantee Percent of Measurable Objectives Met FY 0405 and FY 05-06
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 N =463
JCPC PROGRAM
AGREEMENT OBJECTIVE
IMPROVE SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE
SUSPENDED
IMPROVE ACADEMICS
TUTORING
IMPROVE SCHOOL
BEHAVIOR
REDUCE OFFENDING
REDUCE OFFENDING FOR
SPECIFIC OFFENSE
VICTIM NEEDS
RESTITUTION
COMMUNITY SERVICE
COMPLETE SANCTIONS
Number
Program
Agreements
with Objective
Number
Met or
Exceed
Objective
% Meeting
or
Exceeding
Program
Objectives
SCHOOL OBJECTIVES:
112
84%
82
68
83%
115
93
81%
2
2
100%
158
137
87%
PUBLIC SAFETY OBJECTIVES:
134
342
298
87%
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 N = 495
Number
Program
Agreements
with Objective
Number Met
or Exceed
Objective
159
141
113
101
122
99
6
6
179
156
% Meeting
or
Exceeding
Program
Objectives
89%
89%
81%
100%
87%
371
330
53
47
48
40
83%
23
18
19
78%
29
24
51
83%
37
29
46
78%
85
61
63
72%
FAMILY/PEER RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES:
30
25
27
RETURN HOME
83%
91
71
120
PARENT RELATIONSHIPS
78%
38
33
57
PEER RELATIONSHIPS
87%
SKILL DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP OBJECTIVES:
26
21
40
ANGER MANAGEMENT
81%
SKILLS
50
41
77
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
82%
18
12
24
JOB SKILLS
67%
59
48
57
PROVIDE COUNSELING
81%
89%
12
39
36
52
89%
63%
76%
78%
83%
22
100
46
81%
83%
81%
32
65
20
48
80%
84%
83%
84%
69
Other program data that add to rationale for continued funding involve the Department’s
monitoring and evaluating that is carried out to determine program funding continuation. To
further ensure that programs and services provided in local communities with JCPC funds are
effective, the local JCPC conducts periodic monitoring of each JCPC program during each fiscal
year, and Department area consultants also conduct monitoring and evaluation visits with each
JCPC program. These monitoring and evaluation strategies are designed to determine the extent
to which each JCPC funded program or service is meeting its specified program objectives and
to determine appropriate actions/strategies when a program is not achieving satisfactory progress
in its program operation. These actions and strategies may range from provision of technical
assistance to the program by Department staff, to further training and staff development, to
action plans for improvement, to a decision to discontinue funding of the program or service.
For example, in FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, local JCPCs and Department staff working
together determined that 103 JCPC programs did not merit further funding for a variety of
reasons. Figure Three indicates that two major factors influenced local JCPCs in making
decisions not to continue funding of JCPC grantees: in FY 2004-2005, 44 percent of those
program grants whose funding was not continued were due to either lack of effectiveness in
meeting program objectives or services not meeting JCPC policy requirements (including poor
program management). Similarly, in FY 2005-2006, 34 percent of those program grants whose
funding was not continued were for either lack of program effectiveness or services not meeting
JCPC policy requirements (including poor program management). Duplication of services,
community needs better served by another program, and program dissolved or did not reapply
were other factors in JCPC decisions regarding funding continuation decisions.
Figure Three: Factors Impacting JCPC Funded Grant Program Continuation Decisions
Factors Impacting Funding Continuation Decisions
Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005
4%
Lack of effectiveness
6%
13%
38%
Duplication of services
1%
Services did not meet JCPC
target population
Services no longer needed
Communities needs better
served by another program
Poor management
27%
Other
11%
n = 71
70
Factors Impacting Funding Continuation Decisions
Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006
4%
Lack of effectiveness
8%
Duplication of services
11%
Services did not meet JCPC
target population
Services no longer needed
49%
8%
11%
Communities needs better
served by another program
Poor management
Other
9%
n =56
The Rationale for Continuing and Increasing Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils: Population Growth, Funding Lag, Service Needs, Program Accountability, and
Cost Savings
Beyond the prevention framework and evidence in the data offered, the rationale for continued
and increased funding for JCPCs stems from need related to population growth, funding lag,
service need, program accountability, and cost savings. During the period 1998-2007, the
number of youth ages 10-17 in North Carolina increased 19 percent from 813,854 to 968,150. In
contrast, during this same time period, funding for JCPCs rose only 3.2 percent from
$21,724,625 to $22,652,860 (including $488,660 taken from previous funding for JCPCs and
transferred to Teen Court operation in 18 counties). With the additional expenses related to Teen
Court during this time interval and concomitant reductions in funding of other local JCPCs to
fund the Teen Court transfer, the net result shows a picture of essentially flat funding for JCPCs
over 1999-2007.
In addition to a significant lag in JCPC funding in relation to juvenile population increases, there
are also significant needs for increased funding in local communities based on recent data on
underserved youth and insufficient capacity of local grant programs to respond to the need for
additional program capacity as evidenced in the Department’s survey of over 500 local JCPC
grant service providers. In that survey, over 60 percent of respondents indicated that increasing
program capacity to serve additional at-risk and court-involved youth was a major
recommendation for program improvement (see Appendix A for survey results).
Because recent funding earmarks by the Department for such resources as increased staffing for
program monitoring and technical assistance as well as technology to improve the Client
Tracking JCPC database have not been attained, Department staff remain limited in their
capacity to provide the level of JCPC program accountability in the form of technical assistance,
training, and program monitoring and evaluation of JCPC programs throughout the State. At
least four additional staff, at an approximate cost of $200,000 are needed, including area
consultants to improve JCPC program monitoring and technical assistance. To assure
accountability in fiscal management, four additional internal auditors, one for each Department
area office, are needed (at an approximate cost of $200,000). Two additional research and
management information staff and accompanying improvements in systems hardware and
71
software (approximate cost $200,000) including staff and equipment/software) are needed to
improve and expand the Department information management infrastructure. This improved
system will allow direct data entry online by local JCPC program providers and online
processing of JCPC program proposals. Finally, these additional resources are needed to improve
quality assurance and timeliness in data entry into the Department’s Client Tracking and NCJOIN data bases.
Finally, cost savings realized because of investment in prevention rather than juvenile justice
system services that are more costly in the courts or in youth development centers offer a
rationale that points toward continuing and increasing funding. To illustrate, JCPC programs
annually admit over 24,000 at-risk and adjudicated youth, providing them with programs and
interventions that allow them to be successfully maintained in the community at an average cost
of $933 per youth as opposed to being committed to a youth development center at an annual
cost of $95,720 per youth. The savings in this comparison is obvious. For every 1 percent of
youth served successfully in JCPC funded community-based programs and kept out of youth
development centers, the cost saved in youth development center expenditures alone is
approximately equal to the total current JCPC allocation of $22.6 million.
Additionally, as a result of the 70 percent reduction in commitments that the State has realized
since reform, a strong case can be made that providing increased funding for JCPCs, the “front
end” of the Comprehensive Strategy will result in further reductions in restrictive and costly
commitment placements of youth. These youth, previously sent to youth development centers,
have now been shifted to local communities with virtually no increase in funding. With the shift
of youth being served in the communities in addition to significant increases in the 10-17 age
range, additional funds need to be provided to the communities in order to continue to provide
the appropriate array and intensity of prevention and intervention services to effectively address
the increasing needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth in North Carolina. Therefore, a prudent
and timely course of action, given the significant reductions in commitments and demonstrated
effectiveness of JCPC programs would be to shift funding saved by those reductions in
commitments to the prevention and intervention end of the juvenile justice system. This strategy
will provide the needed increase in resources for the local JCPCs to continue improving
programs and services in their respective communities that, in turn, would result in further
reductions in youth development center commitments with an associated cost savings as well as
increased successful outcomes for at-risk and adjudicated youth in lesser restrictive and more
cost effective community settings.
Summary and Conclusion
Section three of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review offers a rationale
for continued and increased funding that sets forth prevention, statute, data, need, and cost
savings as premises. The rationale highlights how JCPC funding is an essential part of the
State’s juvenile justice system and that its continuation and, in fact, increase are supported
instatute, program outcomes data, need for additional resources, and cost savings strategies. A
strong case is made for shifting funding from reduced Youth Development Center commitments
to the “front end” of the juvenile justice system to be used for prevention programs that are
effective in diverting at-risk youth from crime and enhancing public safety. Evidence is
72
provided that convincingly demonstrates a consistent pattern of JCPC grant services meeting or
exceeding their measurable program objectives in such critical areas as school suspension and
improved academic achievement, improved school and home behavior, completed restitution to
victims, and improved anger management skills and job/employment-related skills. Equally
important is data demonstrating that JCPC funded grant programs have effectively achieved
program outcomes deemed important to the General Assembly (e.g., reducing subsequent court
complaints and violations of court supervision, fulfilling restitution to victims, and increasing
parental accountability and involvement). Data are also presented that articulated a systematic
decision-making process used by JCPCs resulting in over 100 JCPC funded programs having
their funding discontinued by their JCPCs as a result of lack of effectiveness in meeting program
objectives and/or poor project management during FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-2006. Finally, a
strong case is made for increasing future funding for JCPCs based on increase youth population
(including at-risk youth), a lag in funding of JCPCs over the last eight years, and the need for
additional resources to further ensure JCPC program accountability and quality.
73
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
CONSEQUENCES OF DISCONTINUING PROGRAM FUNDING
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The fourth section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide information
about “the consequences of discontinuing program funding.” Consequences include negative
impacts on juveniles, public and school safety, counties, and the State. These negative impacts
will be felt statewide should funding not be restored. Prevention services directed at juvenile
crime and delinquency will be severely reduced with a likely resulting increase in juvenile crime
and delinquency and an associated reduction in public and school safety. Costs will increase
with more crime.
In order to provide a broad-based assessment of the consequences of discontinuing Juvenile
Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) funding, two large surveys were conducted. First, the
Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University surveyed the JCPC membership in
October, 2007, to ascertain the responses of this critical group on this topic (see Appendix A).
Some 946 members of local JCPCs from all 100 counties responded to the structured survey
questionnaire. The second large survey, conducted by the Department in October, 2007,
surveyed the JCPC program providers in all 100 counties. This survey resulted in responses
from 515 of 632 program providers (81% response rate) in all 100 counties (see Appendix B).
Data from these large participant-based surveys allows discussion of the impact of discontinuing
JCPC funding on: (1) the juveniles served in community programs and services for at-risk and
court involved youth; (2) public and school safety; (3) county-level courts, detention centers,
JCPC integrity, and economic development; and (4) projected Youth Development Center
growth and growth in the number of youth entering the adult criminal system.
Consequences for Juveniles Served by DiscontinuingJCPC Grant-Funded Programs
G.S. 143B-543 establishes the legislative intent of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils as
vehicles to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming delinquent and to protect the
community and the juveniles. According the Juvenile Recidivism Report-May 2007, of the NC
74
Administrative Office of the Courts Sentencing and Policy Commission, “recidivism was lower
when the systemic response of the
court was less invasive, either by
“If we can save one child, the JCPC funding should
processing and treating youths short of
be continued….I believe in preventive programs and
adjudication or, if adjudicated,
belief in a child” County Commissioner, JCPC
providing dispositions short of the
Membership Survey, 2007; reflects consequence
most restrictive option of
of discontinued JCPC funding on Juveniles
confinement” (p.49). Juveniles must
served by JCPC grant funded programs
be provided with appropriate
dispositional alternatives in the community or risk increased likelihood of entry into the juvenile
justice system and further likelihood of recidivating once adjudicated without such community
programs and services.
Without JCPC grant program services, according to 86 percent of Law Enforcement and 91
percent of School Administrator respondents in the JCPC Membership Survey, at-risk and
adjudicated youth are significantly more likely to commit more juvenile offenses, become school
dropouts, become increasingly truant, and be more likely to get suspended from school. In
addition, 81 percent of Mental Health and 85 percent of Social Services Director respondents
believe that discontinuing JCPC funding will result in increased gang activity, increased use of
inpatient services, increased delay in acquiring psychological assessments, increases in consumer
costs for DSS services and an increase in DSS residential placements, and have a negative effect
on the juvenile sex offender population.
Consequences of Discontinued JCPC Funding on Public and School Safety
Two of the most prominent consequences of discontinuing funding for JCPC program grants
would be the negative effect on public safety and school safety, as voiced by 94 percent of all
946 JCPC members survey by the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University.
In that survey, law enforcement officials, court officials, and citizen member participants voiced
broad concern that there would be several major negative consequences of discontinued JCPC on
public safety in their communities: a substantial increase in juvenile crime; a severe reduction
in community dispositional options for adjudicated youth,; a significant increased gang activity
in both the community and in the schools; and loss of prevention interventions for at-risk youth.
Law enforcement respondents
“Discontinued funding will result in a higher juvenile
were in overwhelming
delinquency rate, more victimization, and more gang
agreement that decreased state
activity in general.” Chief of Police, JCPC Membership
JCPC funding will also cause
Survey, 2007; reflects consequences of discontinued
increases in requests for secure
JCPC funding on Public and School Safety
detention (at the expense of
the counties, who will have to
pay 50 percent of the $89 per day rate for detaining a youth in a county detention facility). Of
Mental Heath Director respondents surveyed, 84 percent agreed that decreased JCPC funding
would result in increased street gang activity across the state. Equally important, 89 percent of
survey participants strongly agreed or agreed that decreased JCPC funding would have a
75
negative impact on services to victims and 77 percent of respondents voiced their concern that
reduced JCPC funding will have a negative impact on treatment of juvenile sex offenders.
Similar findings are evident in the Department’s survey of over 500 JCPC program providers
with respect to the consequences of discontinued JCPC funding on school safety and related
school matters. School Administrator respondents serving as JCPC members voiced their
concern that severe consequences would be evident in the following areas of school safety if
JCPC funding were discontinued: an increase in truancy rates in the schools; an increase in the
rate of school suspensions and a concomitant rise in juvenile crime while they are “on the street”
while suspended; an increase in school dropouts; and an increase in gang-related violence in the
schools.
Out of the total number of JCPC member respondents, 93 percent voiced that discontinuing
JCPC funding would have a negative impact on school safety in general. As one county
commissioner survey participant said, there will be a “higher rate of dropouts in schools and an
increase in juvenile crime.” Another county commissioner cited a significant consequence of
discontinued JCPC funding in his county: “Increased dropout rate, with further negative impact
on economic development opportunities in the State of North Carolina.” Finally, one school
superintendent lamented reduced JCPC funding in her comment: “The school system relies on
JCPC services to help with adjudicated youth in intervention for violence and substance abuse.
Without this funding, students with serious behavior problems or involved in serious risk
behaviors would have no avenue for intervention services in our county.”
Consequences of Discontinued JCPC Funding at the County Level
Without JCPC funded programs and services, county court services will see an increase of
intakes of juveniles into the court system and virtually no community-based dispositional options
to refer those juveniles for intervention services to address their needs. This image was echoed
consistently by chief court counselors from counties across the state in the JCPC Membership
Survey. As a result, county detention centers will experience more admissions and counties will
be saddled with 50 percent of the $89/day cost of detaining a youth in a county detention center.
Projections of up to five-fold increases in the number of detention center detainees were made
recently by court counselors at a Department Forum on the State of Juvenile Justice in North
Carolina. Thus, counties could be required to pay thousands of dollars to respond to these
increases in detention center admissions.
In the JCPC Membership Survey, 52 of 53 County Manager respondents indicated that their
county would not be able to pick
up the costs of JCPC programs
"Consequences? Increase in delinquency, increased
and services or the resultant
crime, and increased cost to the State and communities."
costs of not having those
County Manager, JCPC Membership Survey, 2007;
dispositional options in the
reflects consequences of discontinued JCPC funding
community. Another major area
on Public and School Safety
of consequences at the county
level will be economic impact. If JCPC funding is discontinued, over 1,200 JCPC program
provider staff jobs will be lost at a cost of approximately $18 million.
76
Of equal concern are the consequences of discontinuing JCPC funding on the integrity and
confidence in the JCPCs themselves as major suppliers of community-based programs and
services for at-risk and adjudicated youth in communities throughout the state. Several
conclusions in the JCPC Membership Survey point to the fact that years of building interagency
collaboration are at-risk if these funds are reduced significantly or discontinued. The
continuation review process has created great uncertainty among key stakeholders in the
community: county commissioners; law enforcement; school superintendents; judges and court
counselors; as well as the service providers themselves. The possibility of discontinued funding
puts this well-developed culture of interagency collaboration, pooling of funds, and the
allocation of supplemental funding from community agencies for JCPC service providers at
significant risk. And, particularly in rural communities, this climate of uncertainty can affect the
level of confidence organizations have in the longevity of these JCPC funded programs and
services. Finally, if programs are deemed to be unstable because of funding, referral agencies
(such as schools) may refrain from making referrals for fear of program closure. And the
obvious results would be that juveniles who need these services will not receive them or receive
them sporadically.
Consequences of Discontinued JCPC Funding on the State: Youth Development Centers
and Juveniles Entering the Adult Correctional System
Should JCPC funded programs and services be discontinued, the impact on commitments to the
State’s youth development centers will be significant. With such a discontinuation, judges will
have virtually no community dispositional alternatives for diverted or adjudicated youth. Not
only will the vehicle for
preventing juvenile
"Judges will have fewer options for youth, which will
delinquency be severely
increase the number of youth sentenced to state facilities."
impaired with discontinued
County Manager, JCPC Membership Survey, 2007;
funding, the State will be
reflects consequences of discontinued JCPC funding on
forced to increase bed capacity
Public and School Safety
in its youth development
centers, an action that runs contrary to research on appropriate interventions for the vast majority
of youth who are in the juvenile justice system. Counties will no longer have the capacity to
match the intensity of intervention to the needs of each youth in their communities. Costs will be
incurred as youth are no longer diverted but instead penetrate the juvenile court system. And, for
those youth who are committed, the consequences for the State will be the $95,720 cost per
youth annually in a youth development center plus the likelihood that more capacity for the
deep-end part of the juvenile justice system (i.e., more youth development centers), not just
replacing existing capacity as the current project of the State is doing, will need to be required.
The obvious consequence with this will be even more expenditures on juvenile justice facilities.
Evidence-based best practice strongly suggests that youth successfully maintained in the
community are at much lower risk of recidivism and subsequent entry into the Adult
Correctional System as pointed out by a recent study, “From Juvenile-to-Adult: Comprehensive
Criminal History Study-Phase Two, September 2007” from the NC Administrative Office of the
Courts Sentencing and Policy Commission Report on Juvenile Recidivism in North Carolina:
77
“Deeper involvement in the Juvenile Justice System in general, and two
systemic factors in particular, being a juvenile recidivist, and having been
committed to a training school-similarly raised the probability of adult
recidivism net of controls of demographic and other juvenile justice
variables.” (p.35).
The economic consequences and cost-effectiveness of successfully maintaining an at-risk or
adjudicated juvenile in the community at an average cost of approximately $1,000 annually
versus the $95,720 cost annually for housing a juvenile in a youth development center make the
decision of continuing funding of JCPC programs and services an obvious one to support.
Summary and Conclusion
Section four of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report articulates
the very real and serious consequences of discontinuing funding of JCPC programs and services
in the State. These consequences are clearly evidenced in two recent large-scale surveys: one by
the Juvenile Justice Institute at North Carolina Central University involving almost 1,000 JCPC
members from all 100 counties, and a second by the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention in which over 500 JCPC service providers articulated their concerns
regarding any proposed reduction or elimination of JCPC funds for at-risk and adjudicated youth
in every county in the State.
These consequences of discontinued funding will negatively impact the successful maintenance
of at-risk and juvenile court-involved youth receiving prevention and intervention programs and
services to address their needs. Eighty-four percent of JCPC service providers will have to cease
operation if JCPC funding is discontinued. Law enforcement officials, school administrators,
DSS and Health Services directors, and court counselors participating in these two surveys
pointed out the negative impact on public and school safety, resultant increases in gang activity,
increases in school dropouts and suspensions, and significant increases in court involvement and
juvenile commitments to youth development centers if JCPC funding is cut or discontinued.
Ninety-eight percent of county managers and commissioners sitting on JCPCs as members
indicated that they cannot pick up the costs associated with JCPC programs and services in their
counties. Equally important is the fact that the climate of uncertainty created by the continuation
review process has put the integrity of the JCPC itself at risk, in terms of threatening years of
interagency collaboration and pooling of resources among community agencies and
organizations. Finally, the Sentencing Commission’s latest research shows that the deeper youth
are placed in the juvenile justice system, the more likely they are to recidivate and enter into the
adult correctional system----at a cost to the youth and a cost to the State that can be avoided by
reinstating, making recurring, and increasing funding for JCPC prevention and intervention
programs to meet the needs of youth at-risk and those involved in juvenile courts in the State.
78
Appendix A: Part One
"Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership Survey”
A Survey Prepared by the NC Juvenile Justice Institute,
North Carolina Central University
for
The NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Raleigh, North Carolina
October 2007
Requests for further information or permission to reprint should be
addressed to the Juvenile Justice Institute, Criminal Justice Department – NC Central University
208 Whiting Criminal Justice Bldg.
1801 Fayetteville St.
Durham, NC 27707
(919) 503-7091
www.ncjji.org
79
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Juvenile Justice Institute was commissioned by the NCDJJDP to conduct a
survey of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The Institute was commissioned to design and
conduct this survey as a neutral and independent resource. Our report is focused on analyzing
and reviewing the survey results with the stated objective of determining the predicted impact of
discontinued funding. It was deemed that it would be most beneficial if this information was
obtained directly from those charged with overseeing community based juvenile services.
The survey was conducted between September and October 2007. The survey items were tested,
and refined prior to launch via an internet based survey platform. The survey was closed on
October 5th. In order to obtain the maximum number of respondents to participate and to receive
unbiased feedback, respondents were allowed to post anonymous responses to the questions.
Secondly, it was made clear that that survey collection was being handled by an independent
entity and not from the vendor - DJJDP
SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS
In total, 946 responses were received from council members from across the state. The excellent
response rate of approximately 50% to the survey indicated that users were eager to provide their
feedback. Responses were received from all 100 counties. There was roughly equal
representation from rural and urban counties.
The survey was designed to give a multiple perspectives of the issue. The survey was divided
into two sections. The first section was designed to obtain a global measure of the impact of
discontinued funding across four dimensions: School Safety, Public Safety, Services to Victims,
and Services to Families and Children.
For each of these criteria, respondents were asked to indicate whether discontinued funding
would impact service provision. Overwhelmingly, respondents agreed that “Decreased State
JCPC Funding” would negatively impact each of these areas.
Services to Families and Children:
Services to Victims:
Public Safety:
School Safety:
98.0% Agreement
88.5% Agreement
94.4% Agreement
93.1% Agreement
80
81
The second section solicited responses from council members representing targeted community
or government agencies. We asked very specific questions to agency representatives to
determine the impact of discontinued funding to their overall functioning (see Appendix 1 for
actual survey graphs).
Law enforcement personnel represented by sheriffs, school resource officers, and police
chiefs were asked to assess the impact across the following areas: juvenile detention,
juvenile court referrals, juvenile offending, and gang activity.
88.5% indicated that there would be increases in Juvenile detention
94.2% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Court Referrals
86.6% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Offending
80.5% indicated that there would be increased Gang Activity.
Social Service Directors (or their designees) were asked to assess the impact to their agencies in
the following areas: consumer costs, residential placements, and custody assignments to DSS.
84.6% indicated possible increased consumer costs for DSS services.
95.0% indicated that there would be increased DSS residential placements.
92.5% indicated that there would be increased custody assignments to DSS.
Mental Health Directors were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact their
service usage and provision.
96.1% indicated that there would be increased use of inpatient services.
81.0% indicated increased delays for juvenile psychological assessments
School Administrators & Principals were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact
school operation.
91.2% indicated that there would be an increase in truancies.
91.2% indicated that there would be increased school suspensions
97.1% indicated that there would be an increase in school dropouts.
CONCLUSIONS
No significant differences were found to exist between the responses of urban and rural
counties. Similarly, analyses were conducted to determine if there were any differences between
high-crime counties and those with low juvenile offending. We found no differences. In either
case, both groups indicated with comparable levels of strength that deceased funding would
impact their communities negatively. This suggests that JCPC funding has come to be an
integral part of the community level response to juvenile offending across the state.
By asking “agency specific” questions, we were able to assess indirectly the level of integration
of JCPC programs with other community efforts. It is apparent from the response patterns that
the communities have obtained a significant amount of program and agency level collaboration.
82
Across all dimensions, respondents indicated their agreement that discontinued funding would
have negative impacts on the arenas covered by their respective agencies. It is evident that this
collaboration has reached a point where financial disruption in one arena has substantial
programmatic and operational effects for all others.
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS
A major focus of the survey was on obtaining candid responses from council members. To that
end, respondents were given the opportunity to type in answers in the following categories: 1)
recommendations for improving services, and 2) the consequences of decreased funding.
645 respondents took the opportunity to type in responses. Eight major themes emerged from
this section of the survey yielding a valuable source of information.
1) Testimonials
Generally, these comments are testaments to the quality of services in a given county. By and
large, council members lauded their programs and remarked on the value these programs have
for their communities.
2) Impact of Discontinued Funding
Respondents spoke to the negative consequences resulting from decreased funding across several
domains. Of particular interest was the high number of respondents indicating that decreased
funding would create severe strains on their communities:
1) decreased service provision because of an inability to continue providing much
needed services;
2) concern over general increases in youthful offending and delinquency;
3) Financial strain on county budgets and agency budgets.
3) General Funding Recommendations
Respondents indicated concerns over how funds are distributed noting that the level &
distribution and the allocation parameters are inconsistent with actual crime levels and the
financial capacities of communities.
4) Supervision/Accountability/Governance
Multiple themes surfaced in this arena.
1) Concern that there is insufficient accountability of programs;
2) A concern that disruptions to funding is a function of JCPC program
performance;
83
3) Calls for increased monitoring and coordination of programs supervised by
JCPCs.
5) Technical Assistance
Many respondents indicated that there was a need for greater technical assistance for JCPCs and
the programs they supervise.
6) Service Level/Type
Though many of these comments mention funding, they specify the need to funnel funds toward
specific programs/initiatives. A popular theme among many respondents was a concern that
there is not enough effort and monies directed toward prevention services.
7) Coordination of Services
Generally respondents indicated that there was a greater need for communication and
collaboration between entities (e.g., coordination between schools and JCPC programs; and
collaboration between neighboring counties).
8) Parent/Community Involvement
Many respondents suggested that there is a need for more communally oriented service provision
inclusive of parents and community members.
Respondents identified a lack of parental involvement as a chronic problem faced by the
agencies and programs they supervise.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, these responses indicate that there is substantial confidence in the missions of the
JCPCs. However, there is a consistent theme of concern over the how the councils and programs
are functioning. It cannot be determined from this survey whether this concern is based upon
objective assessments, or if the concern is a function of the apparent anxiety created over the
funding changes. To make a valid determination would require a more in-depth study that looks
specifically at the many issues identified herein:
1) Ascertaining the exact level of financial dependence communities have on state allocated
funds as compared to other funding sources.
2) Assessment of how the network of juvenile services programs is functioning as a unit as
opposed to separate evaluations of individual programs.
3) A systematic review of the funding formula to determine if it is consistent with identified
community needs and responsive to changes in juvenile offense patterns.
4) A review of the accountability measures that are in place as aligned against standards of good
practice for non-profit agencies and governance entities.
84
5) Targeted program level focused assessment to determine the level of functioning and the
organizational needs of programs being funded by JCPCs.
Nonetheless, based on the information given by respondents, there are several areas of concern.
These issues point to potentially critical areas that may require addressing in the immediate
future.
Of primary concern is the harmonious functioning of the councils. This type of locally led
initiative can only be successful to the extent that local individuals have confidence in their
mission. The responses show that there is a high level of uncertainty concerning services and
funding. This uncertainty may cause individual members to lose faith in their mission and
thereby impact the functioning of the councils.
The enabling legislation that created the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils mandated the
participation of agency representatives from across the spectrum of juvenile service providers.
Largely, the General Assembly’s implicit goal of increasing program and inter-agency
collaboration has been accomplished. However, if the uncertainty uncovered in this survey is
allowed to persist, there exists the possibility of dismantling the collaborative inroads made by
these agencies. This culture has facilitated the pooling of resources around the shared goal
serving juveniles. The responses indicate that agencies like local United Way and County
Governments willingly allocate supplemental program funds to JCPC programs. As mentioned
above, this survey does not allow the drawing of specific conclusions regarding the actual extent
to which these organizations are functionally and financially integrated. But, it has long been
established that higher levels of integration between programs produces better outcomes for
delinquent youth.
Because of the tight-knit nature of communities in rural areas, uncertainty can affect the level of
confidence organizations have in the longevity of these programs. If programs are deemed to be
unstable because of funding, referral agencies (like schools) may refrain from making referrals
for fear of program closure. The result would likely be juveniles not receiving needed services
or receiving services sporadically.
Based on the survey results, there is no evidence that the concerns noted herein have manifested
on a large scale. These conclusions are, however, potential hazards that can be foreseen based
upon 1) the historical performance of community agencies in the state of North Carolina when
faced with crises; and 2) the prevailing research literature that underscores the corrosive nature
of uncertainty and its impact on organizational functioning.
85
Appendix A: Part Two
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Appendix B: Part One
JCPC Program Provider Survey
Instructions
JCPC Survey: Program Manager's Questions
The recently approved State Budget (HB 1473) requires the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and
House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils by February 1, 2008. This
survey is designed to assist the Department in preparing this report.
Please complete one questionnaire per program.
Please provide the following (*required)
First Name*
Last Name*
Title*
Phone*
Email*
County*
Program Name*
ProgramID#
Sustainability of Programming
1.
Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is
discontinued?
Yes (Skip to Q. 5)
95
No (Skip to Q. 2)
Sustainability Impact
If you answered "No" to question 1, then please indicate which of the following steps are likely
to occur for your program if JCPC funding is discontinued
Yes
2.
Would your program reduce services?
3.
Would your program reduce services to
DJJDP youth?
4.
Would your program cease to operate?
No
Program Information
5.
How many staff are currently employed with your program? (Use Integer Only)
6.
If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many paid staff in your program would be lost? (Use
Integer Only)
7.
If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many adult community volunteers serving in your
program would be lost? (Use Integer Only)
8.
Please estimate what percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was
"economically disadvantaged" (e.g. eligible for free lunch at school, family uses food
stamps, etc.)? (Use Integer Only - Do not use % Sign)
9.
How long has your program been in operation in your community in years? (Use Integer
Only)
96
10.
11.
What was the highest number of youth on a waiting list for your program services in FY
06-07? (Use Integer Only)
What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth and/or
families? Check all that apply:
( Select all that apply.)
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 NOON
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 MIDNIGHT
97
12.
If applicable, provide the total amount of restitution in whole dollars that was paid to
victim(s) during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only - Do not use $ Sign)
13.
If applicable, provide the total number of community service hours completed by youth in
your program during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only)
Community Impact
Please indicate on the scale below the estimated degree of unwanted consequences, as a result of
discontinued JCPC funding to your program, related to the following areas in your county:
Unsure
No
Impact
Little Moderate Severe
Impact Impact Impact
14. School Safety
15. Public Safety
16. Services to Victims
17. Services to Families and Children
Recommendations of Improving Program Services
18.
The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for improving
program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of the following that
would assist in improving your program services:
( Select all that apply.)
Increase program funding
Increased duration of service
Increased frequency of contact with clients
Increased staff training
Increased staff retention
Expansion of program capacity
98
Increased supplemental services
Increased fulfillment of restitution to victims
Increased coordination and communication with Juvenile Court Counselors
Increased program capacity to provide transportation to youth
19.
Other recommendations for improving your program's services
99
Appendix B: Part Two
JCPC Program Provider Survey Results as downloaded
Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is
discontinued?
Would your program reduce services?
100
Would your program reduce services to DJJDP youth?
Would your program cease to operate?
101
What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth
and/or families? Check all that apply:
102
RATING THE IMPACT OF DECREASED JCPC FUNDING:
School Safety
103
Public
Safety
Services to Victims
Services to Families and Children
104
105
The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for
improving program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of
the following that would assist in improving your program services:
106
Percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was "economically disadvantaged"
180
160
N u m b e r o f P ro g ra m s R e p o rtin g
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Below 20%
20 to 29%
30 to 39%
40 to 49%
50 to 59%
60 to 69%
70 to 79%
80 to 89%
90 to 100%
107
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SERVICES
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The fifth section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide
“recommendations for improving services.” Beyond the obvious need to reinstate and increase
funding as a means to improve service provision, recommendations fall into three areas: the
funding formula; accountability and evaluation; and a philosophy and practice that emphasizes
the family and System of Care dynamics.
In order to generate recommendations for improving the services of Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils (JCPCs), two large surveys were conducted. First, the Juvenile Justice Institute at
North Carolina Central University surveyed the JCPC membership in October, 2007, to ascertain
the responses of this critical group on this topic (see Appendix A). Some 946 members of local
JCPCs from all 100 counties responded to the structured survey questionnaire. The second large
survey, conducted by the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in October,
2007, surveyed the JCPC program providers in all 100 counties. This survey resulted in
responses from 515 of 632 program providers (81% response rate) in all 100 counties (see
Appendix B). Department staff also provided input into the recommendations.
Program Improvement Recommendations
The JCPC membership survey involved almost 1,000 law enforcement sheriffs and police chiefs,
county managers/commissioners, school superintendents, directors of mental health and social
services, and chief court counselors. Over 500 JCPC program providers responded. Finally,
Department staff conducted structured brainstorming and input sessions on this important topic.
A cluster analysis of survey and staff responses indicates that their recommendations for
improving JCPC programs center around four areas:
108
1.
A systematic review of the JCPC funding formula to determine if it is consistent
with community needs, changes in juvenile offense patterns, and responsive to
changes in population of juveniles ages 10-17. JCPC allocation amounts for each
county are based on the amount allocated to the county for the previous fiscal year. By
Administrative Code (28 NCAC 02A .0104), when expansion funds are provided by the
legislature, the Department apportions the expansion funds to the counties in a) an equal
amount, b) in a proportionate amount per county based on the county population that is
10-17 years of age or c) a combination of an equal amount and a proportionate amount
based on population. Cuts by the legislature are also made in the same way. Because
JCPC funds have a 30 year history, basically being allocated with a starting base from the
previous fiscal year, there are county allocations that are not in line when compared with
one another by population. NC General Statute 143B-550 (a)(2) states, “A formula shall
be developed that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide the basic
prevention and alternative services to juveniles in their communities.” Without a major
expansion in funding, adjustments to allocations to bring the allocations in line according
to population will result in cuts to smaller counties. The recommended review must be
targeted at having the resources to increase the capacity of programs with demonstrated
success.
Documented need for additional programs, especially focused on prevention efforts, was
also a prominent and frequent recommendation, as illustrated by the following survey
participant responses:
•
•
•
2.
“The P in JCPC stands for Prevention. I would like to see more flexibility
where JCPCs focus more resources on prevention efforts.”
“Funding has been flat for years. If funding could be increased, current
programs could better serve clients and new programs could be
implemented.”
“Increase funding cycles to give agencies enough time to actually deliver
programs in their entirety.”
Improved JCPC program accountability and effectiveness was also a widely
expressed recommendation for program improvement. Recommendations from
many community and staff respondents are summarized:
•
•
•
Conduct a review of the accountability measures that are in place for
JCPCs as aligned to standards of good practice for non-profit agencies and
government entities ($50,000 for independent review)
Develop a grants management system that focuses on program
effectiveness and that provides ongoing, online data updates and a
paperless system of data entry for program monitoring and evaluation
purposes. (An estimated $400,000 for hardware and software; an
estimated $200,000 annually for 4 additional Information Technology
staff)
Provide increased funding for additional training of local JCPCs in
program monitoring. ($200,000)
109
•
3.
Fund additional staff needed at the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention to work with JCPCs to monitor program progress
and perform internal audit functions, devise program improvement plans,
develop program performance standards and outcomes for each JCPC
program type, develop and implement a system of graduated interventions
for programs not meeting performance standards (including de-funding
where appropriate) and improve technical assistance capacity by the
Department staff to JCPC programs. (4 additional area consultants with an
estimated $200,000 annual cost; 4 additional internal audit staff with an
estimated $200,000 annual cost)
Continued development of a consensus philosophy and effective teaming
vehicle(s) for addressing issues around effective problem identification,
decision-making, prevention strategy and intervention planning, fidelity of
implementation, and evaluation of services effectiveness. Child serving
agencies throughout North Carolina, with support from the legislature, embrace a
System of Care approach to service planning and service delivery. Mental Health
Providers, Departments of Social Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, schools and other agencies are collaboratively working
to approach the work with children, youth and families with one service plan for
any youth and family that is strength-based and family centered. The agencies and
families work in Child and Family Teams to assist youth and families to meet
their needs. Any agency or person involved with the youth or family’s issues is
involved in the Child and Family Team. Continuing to develop this approach in
the work of service providers will improve communication and collaboration
between service providers, both those funded through JCPCs and those with other
funding sources and will benefit the effectiveness of services.
In addition to support for carrying out this collaborative approach, program
providers are eager for and are seeking training sessions, workshops, and
networking opportunities to lend support to their on-going work. The Department
will continue to seek and publicize opportunities for training in the collaborative
approach and in skill building for all service providers. The Department will
partner with JCPCs to encourage this collaborative approach in each community.
Summary and Conclusion
Section five of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review highlights major
recommendations for improving JCPC programs and services. Sources of these
recommendations included over 1,500 respondents to the JCPC Membership Survey and JCPC
Program Provider Survey. The former was conducted by the Institute for Juvenile Justice at
North Carolina Central University as an independent party study in October 2007. The latter was
conducted by the Department in September 2007. Recommendations for JCPC program
improvement clustered around three areas: (1) a systematic review of the JCPC funding formula
to determine if it is consistent with community needs, changes in juvenile offense patterns, and
changes in the juvenile ages 10-17 population, (2) improved JCPC program accountability and
110
effectiveness, including a review of accountability measures for JCPCs as aligned with standards
of good practice for non-profit agencies and government entities, development of a paperless
grants management system, increased funding to train JCPCs in program monitoring, and
additional staff at the Department level to improve JCPC program monitoring and evaluation as
well as internal auditing of fiscal processes, and (3) continued development of a consensus
philosophy , practice and skill building that emphasizes the family and System of Care dynamics.
111
Appendix A: Part One
"Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Membership Survey”
A Survey Prepared by the NC Juvenile Justice Institute,
North Carolina Central University
for
The NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Raleigh, North Carolina
October 2007
Requests for further information or permission to reprint should be
addressed to the Juvenile Justice Institute, Criminal Justice Department – NC Central University
208 Whiting Criminal Justice Bldg.
1801 Fayetteville St.
Durham, NC 27707
(919) 503-7091
www.ncjji.org
112
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Juvenile Justice Institute was commissioned by the NCDJJDP to conduct a
survey of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The Institute was commissioned to design and
conduct this survey as a neutral and independent resource. Our report is focused on analyzing
and reviewing the survey results with the stated objective of determining the predicted impact of
discontinued funding. It was deemed that it would be most beneficial if this information was
obtained directly from those charged with overseeing community based juvenile services.
The survey was conducted between September and October 2007. The survey items were tested,
and refined prior to launch via an internet based survey platform. The survey was closed on
October 5th. In order to obtain the maximum number of respondents to participate and to receive
unbiased feedback, respondents were allowed to post anonymous responses to the questions.
Secondly, it was made clear that that survey collection was being handled by an independent
entity and not from the vendor - DJJDP
SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS
In total, 946 responses were received from council members from across the state. The excellent
response rate of approximately 50% to the survey indicated that users were eager to provide their
feedback. Responses were received from all 100 counties. There was roughly equal
representation from rural and urban counties.
The survey was designed to give a multiple perspectives of the issue. The survey was divided
into two sections. The first section was designed to obtain a global measure of the impact of
discontinued funding across four dimensions: School Safety, Public Safety, Services to Victims,
and Services to Families and Children.
For each of these criteria, respondents were asked to indicate whether discontinued funding
would impact service provision. Overwhelmingly, respondents agreed that “Decreased State
JCPC Funding” would negatively impact each of these areas.
Services to Families and Children:
Services to Victims:
Public Safety:
School Safety:
98.0% Agreement
88.5% Agreement
94.4% Agreement
93.1% Agreement
113
114
The second section solicited responses from council members representing targeted community
or government agencies. We asked very specific questions to agency representatives to
determine the impact of discontinued funding to their overall functioning (see Appendix 1 for
actual survey graphs).
Law enforcement personnel represented by sheriffs, school resource officers, and police
chiefs were asked to assess the impact across the following areas: juvenile detention,
juvenile court referrals, juvenile offending, and gang activity.
88.5% indicated that there would be increases in Juvenile detention
94.2% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Court Referrals
86.6% indicated that there would be increased Juvenile Offending
80.5% indicated that there would be increased Gang Activity.
Social Service Directors (or their designees) were asked to assess the impact to their agencies in
the following areas: consumer costs, residential placements, and custody assignments to DSS.
84.6% indicated possible increased consumer costs for DSS services.
95.0% indicated that there would be increased DSS residential placements.
92.5% indicated that there would be increased custody assignments to DSS.
Mental Health Directors were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact their
service usage and provision.
96.1% indicated that there would be increased use of inpatient services.
81.0% indicated increased delays for juvenile psychological assessments
School Administrators & Principals were asked to indicate how decreased funding would impact
school operation.
91.2% indicated that there would be an increase in truancies.
91.2% indicated that there would be increased school suspensions
97.1% indicated that there would be an increase in school dropouts.
CONCLUSIONS
No significant differences were found to exist between the responses of urban and rural
counties. Similarly, analyses were conducted to determine if there were any differences between
high-crime counties and those with low juvenile offending. We found no differences. In either
case, both groups indicated with comparable levels of strength that deceased funding would
impact their communities negatively. This suggests that JCPC funding has come to be an
integral part of the community level response to juvenile offending across the state.
By asking “agency specific” questions, we were able to assess indirectly the level of integration
of JCPC programs with other community efforts. It is apparent from the response patterns that
the communities have obtained a significant amount of program and agency level collaboration.
115
Across all dimensions, respondents indicated their agreement that discontinued funding would
have negative impacts on the arenas covered by their respective agencies. It is evident that this
collaboration has reached a point where financial disruption in one arena has substantial
programmatic and operational effects for all others.
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE SURVEY ITEMS
A major focus of the survey was on obtaining candid responses from council members. To that
end, respondents were given the opportunity to type in answers in the following categories: 1)
recommendations for improving services, and 2) the consequences of decreased funding.
645 respondents took the opportunity to type in responses. Eight major themes emerged from
this section of the survey yielding a valuable source of information.
1) Testimonials
Generally, these comments are testaments to the quality of services in a given county. By and
large, council members lauded their programs and remarked on the value these programs have
for their communities.
2) Impact of Discontinued Funding
Respondents spoke to the negative consequences resulting from decreased funding across several
domains. Of particular interest was the high number of respondents indicating that decreased
funding would create severe strains on their communities:
1) decreased service provision because of an inability to continue providing much
needed services;
2) concern over general increases in youthful offending and delinquency;
3) Financial strain on county budgets and agency budgets.
3) General Funding Recommendations
Respondents indicated concerns over how funds are distributed noting that the level &
distribution and the allocation parameters are inconsistent with actual crime levels and the
financial capacities of communities.
4) Supervision/Accountability/Governance
Multiple themes surfaced in this arena.
1) Concern that there is insufficient accountability of programs;
2) A concern that disruptions to funding is a function of JCPC program
performance;
116
3) Calls for increased monitoring and coordination of programs supervised by
JCPCs.
5) Technical Assistance
Many respondents indicated that there was a need for greater technical assistance for JCPCs and
the programs they supervise.
6) Service Level/Type
Though many of these comments mention funding, they specify the need to funnel funds toward
specific programs/initiatives. A popular theme among many respondents was a concern that
there is not enough effort and monies directed toward prevention services.
7) Coordination of Services
Generally respondents indicated that there was a greater need for communication and
collaboration between entities (e.g., coordination between schools and JCPC programs; and
collaboration between neighboring counties).
8) Parent/Community Involvement
Many respondents suggested that there is a need for more communally oriented service provision
inclusive of parents and community members.
Respondents identified a lack of parental involvement as a chronic problem faced by the
agencies and programs they supervise.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, these responses indicate that there is substantial confidence in the missions of the
JCPCs. However, there is a consistent theme of concern over the how the councils and programs
are functioning. It cannot be determined from this survey whether this concern is based upon
objective assessments, or if the concern is a function of the apparent anxiety created over the
funding changes. To make a valid determination would require a more in-depth study that looks
specifically at the many issues identified herein:
1) Ascertaining the exact level of financial dependence communities have on state allocated
funds as compared to other funding sources.
2) Assessment of how the network of juvenile services programs is functioning as a unit as
opposed to separate evaluations of individual programs.
3) A systematic review of the funding formula to determine if it is consistent with identified
community needs and responsive to changes in juvenile offense patterns.
4) A review of the accountability measures that are in place as aligned against standards of good
practice for non-profit agencies and governance entities.
117
5) Targeted program level focused assessment to determine the level of functioning and the
organizational needs of programs being funded by JCPCs.
Nonetheless, based on the information given by respondents, there are several areas of concern.
These issues point to potentially critical areas that may require addressing in the immediate
future.
Of primary concern is the harmonious functioning of the councils. This type of locally led
initiative can only be successful to the extent that local individuals have confidence in their
mission. The responses show that there is a high level of uncertainty concerning services and
funding. This uncertainty may cause individual members to lose faith in their mission and
thereby impact the functioning of the councils.
The enabling legislation that created the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils mandated the
participation of agency representatives from across the spectrum of juvenile service providers.
Largely, the General Assembly’s implicit goal of increasing program and inter-agency
collaboration has been accomplished. However, if the uncertainty uncovered in this survey is
allowed to persist, there exists the possibility of dismantling the collaborative inroads made by
these agencies. This culture has facilitated the pooling of resources around the shared goal
serving juveniles. The responses indicate that agencies like local United Way and County
Governments willingly allocate supplemental program funds to JCPC programs. As mentioned
above, this survey does not allow the drawing of specific conclusions regarding the actual extent
to which these organizations are functionally and financially integrated. But, it has long been
established that higher levels of integration between programs produces better outcomes for
delinquent youth.
Because of the tight-knit nature of communities in rural areas, uncertainty can affect the level of
confidence organizations have in the longevity of these programs. If programs are deemed to be
unstable because of funding, referral agencies (like schools) may refrain from making referrals
for fear of program closure. The result would likely be juveniles not receiving needed services
or receiving services sporadically.
Based on the survey results, there is no evidence that the concerns noted herein have manifested
on a large scale. These conclusions are, however, potential hazards that can be foreseen based
upon 1) the historical performance of community agencies in the state of North Carolina when
faced with crises; and 2) the prevailing research literature that underscores the corrosive nature
of uncertainty and its impact on organizational functioning.
118
Appendix A: Part Two
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Appendix B: Part One
JCPC Program Provider Survey
Instructions
JCPC Survey: Program Manager's Questions
The recently approved State Budget (HB 1473) requires the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and
House of Representatives on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils by February 1, 2008. This
survey is designed to assist the Department in preparing this report.
Please complete one questionnaire per program.
Please provide the following (*required)
First Name*
Last Name*
Title*
Phone*
Email*
County*
Program Name*
ProgramID#
Sustainability of Programming
1.
Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is
discontinued?
Yes (Skip to Q. 5)
128
No (Skip to Q. 2)
Sustainability Impact
If you answered "No" to question 1, then please indicate which of the following steps are likely
to occur for your program if JCPC funding is discontinued
Yes
2.
Would your program reduce services?
3.
Would your program reduce services to
DJJDP youth?
4.
Would your program cease to operate?
No
Program Information
5.
How many staff are currently employed with your program? (Use Integer Only)
6.
If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many paid staff in your program would be lost? (Use
Integer Only)
7.
If JCPC funding is discontinued, how many adult community volunteers serving in your
program would be lost? (Use Integer Only)
8.
Please estimate what percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was
"economically disadvantaged" (e.g. eligible for free lunch at school, family uses food
stamps, etc.)? (Use Integer Only - Do not use % Sign)
9.
How long has your program been in operation in your community in years? (Use Integer
Only)
129
10.
11.
What was the highest number of youth on a waiting list for your program services in FY
06-07? (Use Integer Only)
What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth and/or
families? Check all that apply:
( Select all that apply.)
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 NOON
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 MIDNIGHT
130
12.
If applicable, provide the total amount of restitution in whole dollars that was paid to
victim(s) during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only - Do not use $ Sign)
13.
If applicable, provide the total number of community service hours completed by youth in
your program during FY 2006-07. (Use Integer Only)
Community Impact
Please indicate on the scale below the estimated degree of unwanted consequences, as a result of
discontinued JCPC funding to your program, related to the following areas in your county:
Unsure
No
Impact
Little Moderate Severe
Impact Impact Impact
14. School Safety
15. Public Safety
16. Services to Victims
17. Services to Families and Children
Recommendations of Improving Program Services
18.
The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for improving
program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of the following that
would assist in improving your program services:
( Select all that apply.)
Increase program funding
Increased duration of service
Increased frequency of contact with clients
Increased staff training
Increased staff retention
Expansion of program capacity
131
Increased supplemental services
Increased fulfillment of restitution to victims
Increased coordination and communication with Juvenile Court Counselors
Increased program capacity to provide transportation to youth
19.
Other recommendations for improving your program's services
132
Appendix B: Part Two
JCPC Program Provider Survey Results as downloaded
Are you able to sustain your program at its current capacity if JCPC funding is
discontinued?
Would your program reduce services?
133
Would your program reduce services to DJJDP youth?
Would your program cease to operate?
134
What time(s) of the day does your program provide direct services to youth
and/or families? Check all that apply:
135
RATING THE IMPACT OF DECREASED JCPC FUNDING:
School Safety
136
Public
Safety
Services to Victims
Services to Families and Children
137
138
The General Assembly requires the Department to offer recommendations for
improving program services in the continuation review report. Please check all of
the following that would assist in improving your program services:
139
Percentage of youth served by your program in FY 06-07 was "economically disadvantaged"
180
160
N u m b e r o f P ro g ra m s R e p o rtin g
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Below 20%
20 to 29%
30 to 39%
40 to 49%
50 to 59%
60 to 69%
70 to 79%
80 to 89%
90 to 100%
140
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING COSTS
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The sixth section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provide
“recommendations for reducing costs.” The over 500 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC)
programs statewide work to operate in a cost-efficient and effective manner but recent
discussions among JCPC programs, JCPC members, and Department staff have generated
several possible recommendations for reducing costs associated with the operation of JCPC
programs. Five recommendations for possible cost reductions are discussed that focus on
making JCPC programs and services more cost-effective and operationally efficient while
improving quality assurance. A concluding recommendation about the savings associated with
JCPC funding itself is also offered.
Recommendations for Reducing Costs
The first recommendation for reducing costs involves transitioning from an annual to
multi-year planning process for the JCPCs. This change was initiated in fall 2007 and will
address the 2008-09 planning year. The option will allow JCPCs to increase their collaboration
with other county agencies in strategic planning, including opportunities to reduce services
overlap, improve transportation for clients, improve scheduling, and increase leveraging of JCPC
funding in relation to other funding that may be available to JCPC clients in their respective
counties. Multi-year funding (commensurate with the Legislative Biennium) could provide
further cost savings in terms of program planning, budgeting, and volume purchasing
efficiencies.
The second cost-saving recommendation proposed is to implement a paperless system of
reporting for Requests for Proposals, Program Agreements, program monitoring, and
county JCPC planning. This system will result in staff time savings that could translate into
greater efficiency in JCPC administrative costs and reduce Department staff time cost
141
The third recommendation for reducing costs proposes the use of videoconferencing as a
means of reducing members and service providers’ travel time and related costs associated
with ongoing training needed for JCPC members and service providers on a regular basis.
This recommendation will also result in savings on facilities rental and related training costs.
As a fourth cost-reduction proposal, the JCPCs and Department staff propose a
collaborative effort to refine and enhance the existing program effectiveness monitoring
and evaluation system to improve the use of JCPC staff and members’ time as well as that
used by service providers in demonstrating the effectiveness of individual programs and
services. This improved system will increase staff time efficiencies in program monitoring and
evaluation as well as provide the JCPCs with improved data upon which to act on programs that
are not meeting standards for program effectiveness. Thus, a continuum of interventions
implemented in these situations will result in cost savings by either making program
improvements or making a decision to discontinue funding of ineffective or poorly managed
JCPC programs. This recommendation could be coupled with a system that equitably reallocates available discretionary funds as early in the fiscal year as possible.
A fifth proposal for cost reductions involves an initiative by JCPCs to work with county
agencies through interagency collaboration to reduce any overlap in services. This strategy
would allow not only the JCPC, but other community and county agencies to plan more effective
as well as cost-efficient services by reducing overlap in referrals, assessments, as well as direct
services to youth served by multiple agencies.
Summary and Conclusion
Section six of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review report focuses on
recommendations for reducing costs related to the operation of JCPC funded grant programs and
services throughout the State. Recommendations emphasize possible cost savings and improved
program quality assurance resulting from JCPC multi-year strategic planning, a paperless system
of grants management, use of videoconferencing as a tool for ongoing JCPC member and service
provider training, an initiative to improve the JCPC program monitoring and evaluation system,
and a systematic review and plan of action by JCPCs and county agencies to reduce any overlap
in services and to better serve underserved youth.
An additional point about reducing costs in this area involves a concluding recommendation that
has been voiced in other parts of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention’s response to the continuation review requirements. This recommendation highlights
that costs are saved through the expenditure of Juvenile Crime Prevention Council funds. By
reinstating and increasing these funds, an investment in the people and communities of the State
occurs with associated cost savings in multiple areas: law enforcement; the court system;
juvenile justice; and adult corrections. Expenditures which focus on prevention now bring
benefits today and into the future. Every youth who increasingly engages in juvenile
delinquency and crime costs the State more resources and represents a loss beyond those costs in
terms of his or her future positive contributions as a taxpaying citizen of the State.
142
CONTINUATION REVIEW OF CERTAIN FUNDS, PROGRAMS, AND DIVISIONS:
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCILS:
POLICY ISSUES
SECTION 6.21. (c) No later than February 1, 2008, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
shall provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. The report shall include all of the information listed in subsection (g) of this
section.
SECTION 6.21. (g) The reports required in this section shall include the following information for each program:
(1) A description of the program, including information on services provided, the recipients of the services, and the
resource requirements.
(2) Meaningful measures of program performance and whether the program is meeting these measures.
(3) The rationale for continuing, reducing, or eliminating funding.
(4) The consequences of discontinuing program funding.
(5) Recommendations for improving services.
(6) Recommendations for reducing costs.
(7) The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
The seventh section of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review provision
requires that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention identify “policy
issues that should be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.” Discussions with local
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) members, service providers, and Department of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention staff yielded six possible policy issues that need to
be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.
Policy Issues
Issue One: Support Prevention. Provide funding that targets prevention. GS 143B-543 states:
“It is the intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at-risk from becoming
delinquent.” With the current average cost of just under $1000 per year for successfully
maintaining a youth served by JCPC supported programs in the community versus an annual cost
of $95,720 per youth in a youth development center, there is clear and compelling reason to
restore and increase funding for youth to be served in lesser restrictive environments and via
programs in their local communities. Funding the “front end” of the juvenile justice system with
monies that would otherwise go to the “back end” of the system fits statute intent and is in
alignment with what has happened in juvenile justice over the last nine years as the committed
population has been reduced by almost 70 percent and the number of youth served in
communities has increased.
Issue Two: Serve Youth Who Are “At Risk”. During the course of the Continuation Review,
the Department was made aware of some people’s interest in limiting the delivery of JCPC
services to youth who have opened the juvenile justice system door and crossed the threshold
into the court system. This is a very short sighted way of implementing the JCPC approach as it
is much wiser to spend money on youth who are “at risk” in addition to those who are already
“in trouble” or adjudicated as opposed to spending money on only youth who are in the latter
category. Failing to spend money on the “at risk” population will lead to an increased population
143
of youth who become delinquent, commit crimes, and are adjudicated. The earlier services can
be provided to youth, the more likely they will make the right choices of staying in school and
staying out of trouble.
Issue Three: Review and revise JCPC funding allocation formula. This policy area received
unanimous support from those in the communities as well as Department staff when it was
discussed as part of the Continuation Review. The policy issue centers on how to distribute the
State JCPC allocation in a fair and equitable way to best meet the needs of youth and the
communities in which they reside. Wide variation in population and community resources
across counties are just two of the variables that should be included in discussions about the
allocation formula.
Issue Four: Investigate blended funding from various state agencies for JCPC targeted atrisk youth. Given the frequent service profile (which may involve mental health and social
service agencies, local schools, and other non-profit service providers) of youth served by JCPC
funded programs, there is reason to investigate the use of funds from various state agencies to
meet the needs of these youth. Once a youth becomes involved with the juvenile justice system,
access to resources funded through other agencies may be limited due to policies unique to other
state agencies that do not serve delinquent youth in their primary or core responsibilities.
Issue Five: Recognize the need for mental health services for youth and provide funding to
meet these needs. The mental health needs of youth are increasingly being acknowledged, and
youth and their families are increasingly frequent consumers of mental health assessment and
intervention/treatment services. The availability of these services is lacking, and funding is not
adequate to meet need. How these needs and the lack of services should be addressed as well as
where to target funding are all policy issues that impact JCPCs as some currently attempt to meet
these needs and fill the service gaps.
Issue Six: Enhance accountability and evaluation. Additional resources are needed to
enhance accountability and improve the evaluation of JCPC program effectiveness and quality
assurance. Technology improvements, additional Department staff, the establishment of a
paperless system for JCPC grants, and setting research-based standards for all JCPC programs
would all enhance the accountability that is desired for JCPCs. How to best implement the
Standard Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) needs discussion in terms of its role in program
development and evaluation.
Summary and Conclusion
Section seven of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Continuation Review addresses policy
issues for consideration by the General Assembly. Six policy issues were proposed for attention:
prevention; youth served; allocation; blended funding; mental health needs and services; and
accountability and evaluation. Each requires discussion and decision.
144