Orange County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
The Youth Leadership Academy: a Program Review
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
The primary way the YLA responded to the need to significantly reduce overall budget expenditures was to idle one of two units; therefore the program is operating at approximately half capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Recast program goals into measurable objectives (e.g., recidivism rates for YLA graduates) in order to facilitate the quantification of results.
F2
New management has successfully implemented changes in how residents are regarded and treated, and has instituted evidence-based programming.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Develop efficient ways to track the progress of YLA graduates in order to better measure rates of recidivism; use this information to demonstrate program effectiveness over time.
F3
The YLA has just undergone another change of leadership (March 2011); so far, changes that were implemented are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Continue to search for research and training grants, including private foundation and professional association grants.
F4
The YLA has been successful in improving overall security and safety, as indicated by the near elimination of serious problem behaviors on the unit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Develop collaborative ties to a criminology department at a local university or college; encourage graduate students working on master’s theses and doctoral dissertations to study YLA programs and outcomes.
F5
Although the program has been successful with adopting evidence-based practices, more work needs to be done to measure outcomes, including progress toward reducing recidivism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Improve the utility of current quarterly statistical reports by incorporating short empirical studies, surveys, and analyses of data already being collected.
F6
The program has developed effective links to the community to facilitate the successful transition of residents back into their neighborhoods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
When using specific Evidence-Based Programs, maintain fidelity to the model’s procedures and interventions, so that YLA results will be empirically supported. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) 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 Sections 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Chief Probation Officer, Orange Co. Probation Dept. F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 Commendation: The Probation Department and Youth Leadership Academy are commended for employing research-tested programs and techniques to effect rehabilitation efforts.
Commendations 1
-
CM1The Probation Department and Youth Leadership Academy are commended for employing research-tested programs and techniques to effect rehabilitation efforts. _______________________________________________________________________________ 13 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010-2011
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.