Orange County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
Many juveniles are detained in treatment centers for 30 to 60 days, yet many probation staffers believe that additional days of treatment and classes will result in a lower recidivism rate.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
By treating juveniles for more days, there are greater “upfront” costs to the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The use of evidence-based practices (what treatment modalities work) results in lower recidivism rates since the focus has shifted from detention and punishment to rehabilitation and re-entry into the community.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Budget constraints have reduced the County’s research department. The Probation Department is handicapped by this reduction in staff since they are unable to determine the true cost impact of their programs and recidivism rates due to the lack of research personnel to collect and analyze data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Orange County Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should re- constitute a research department to collect and analyze the cost effectiveness of their programs, and further monitor their juvenile recidivism rates. (F.3., F.4., F.6.)
F5
The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) is an innovative approach utilized by Orange County for a number of years
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The decline in the number of juvenile detainees has resulted in unused capacity in several juvenile facilities, resulting in the closure of one facility and consolidation in the remaining four facilities. Modest unused capacity is a good thing.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
As of 2010, juvenile court cases in Orange County are in line proportionately with other like-sized counties of populations over 500,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The recently established collaborative teams of the Community Day School, Santa Ana Unified School District, Orange County Probation Department, and various community services, are working as a cohesive team within the budget limitations of this pilot program.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The Probation Department and Santa Ana Unified School District staffs are dedicated to behavioral modification treatments. Additional staff and programs are needed to provide psychological therapies for many juveniles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Orange County Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should budget for evening meals/snacks, transportation home after evening programs, and additional trained behavior modification specialists. (F.9.)
F10
To date, the pilot program of Community Day School is not academically accredited.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Santa Ana Unified School District, the Superintendent of Schools, and the Orange County Probation Department should continue to seek academic accreditation for the Community Day School. (F.10.)
F11
OCPD indicated their intention to replicate the Community Day School to other areas of Orange County, upon successful completion of the pilot program. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of juvenile recidivism in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
After successful evaluation of the Community Day School pilot program, the Orange County Probation Department and the Superintendent of Schools should pursue replicating this model to other areas in Orange County. (F.11.) RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses to Findings are requested from: Orange County Probation Department: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11. Responses to Findings are required from: Orange County Board of Supervisors: F4 Superintendent of Schools: F8, F9, F10, and F11. Santa Ana Unified School District: F8, F9, F10, and F11. Responses to Recommendations are requested from Orange County Probation Department: R1, R2, R3, and R4.. Responses to Recommendations are required from: Orange County Board of Supervisors: R1 and R3. Superintendent of Schools: R2 and R4. Santa Ana Unified School District: R2 COMMENDATONS The 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury is impressed with the dedication of the staff at the Orange County Probation Department, and especially the leadership in the Juvenile Division, as well as with the Santa Ana Unified School District staff at the Community Day School. APPENDICES
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Currently, success rates on reducing recidivism are not fully documented by the Probation Department. Relevant pieces of missing information are (1) what happens after a youth finishes probation; and, (2) how many youths "graduate" to jails after reaching age eighteen. Juvenile recidivism is measured only against those juveniles who break probation and/or commit offenses while on probation. Records of their youthful offenses do not follow them to jail. Thus the ability to measure recidivism is very limited. The Probation Department has noted that recidivism rates can also be confounded by the fact that some youth are released from an institution to state prison, county jail or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - Division of Juvenile Justice. Those releases will not show recidivism within 180 days because they are still incarcerated elsewhere and therefore, do not have the opportunity to re-offend. There may also be older youth who are terminated from probation prior to the end of the 180-day evaluation period, and thus have less opportunity to re-offend within 180 days, where a younger probationer may be on probation for the entire 180-day period. Making recidivism comparisons across programs is very difficult since there are so many variables that may not be accounted for without strict experimental research, data collection and analysis. Since evidence-based planning is critical to allocating limited funding, the Grand Jury feels it is important to re-establish a research department to collect and analyze this data. During recent cutbacks at the Probation Department, the existing Research Department, which consisted of approximately 12 employees (5 were Juvenile researchers), was reduced to only 8 full-time employees (3 are Juvenile researchers), due to budget constraints. The Probation Department is handicapped by this reduction in staff since they are unable to determine the true cost impact of their programs and recidivism rates due to the lack of research personnel to collect and analyze data. Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.