jjcpa fy 2011-fy 2012 evalreport.ppt · introduction the information contained in the juvenile...

1

SANTA CLARA COUNTY JJCPA-FUNDED PROGRAMS

FINAL EVALUATION FY 2011 – FY 2012

Introduction The information contained in the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention

Act (JJCPA) Evaluation Report pertains to the performance of the four JJCPA-funded programs in FY 2011 and FY 2012.

FY 2011 and FY 2012 represent the 10th and 11th year, respectively, of the State of California’s JJCPA allocation to the County of Santa Clara County.

The JJCPA-funded programs are: Aftercare Services Multi-Agency Assessment Center (MAAC) Restorative Justice Program (RJP) Support and Enhancement Services (SES)

2

3

Inputs What did Santa Clara County spend on services? The County of Santa Clara

allocated $967,157 in JJCPA funds in FY 2012 and $1,198,325 in FY 2011 for the four community-based programs.

In total, $2,165,482 in JJCPA funds was disseminated during FY 2011 – FY 2012.

The RJP (CDS and Mentoring combined) received the largest allocation, with 35.3% of all funds for FY 2011 – FY 2012, followed by SES.

4

CustomersWho were the customers?

JJCPA programs served 7,078 youth in FY 2012 and 8,678 in FY 2011, totaling 15,756 for both years.

During FY 2011 – FY 2012, the majority of youth customers were Latino between the ages of 16 and 19 years.

Seventy-one percent were male and 27.9% were female.

Grantees served youth that had low assets.

5

Zip Codes with Most JJCPA Youth Customers

In FY 2011, the top zip code with the most youth customers served was 95111 (Andrew Hill/Edenvale).

In FY 2012, zip code 95122 (King/Ocala/Overfelt area) became the top geographical region with the most youth served.

6

Asset Level Over Time JJCPA customers, over time, are demonstrating lower risk

avoidance assets indicating that they are exposed to or involved in riskier activities.

Youth participating in the JJCPA-funded programs indicate a relatively higher level of protective assets; there has been little change over time.

The RPRA asset levels are normed as follows: 87.5% or higher is a high level of assets and 81.3% or below is a low level of assets.

7

Outputs How much service was provided?

Community-based partners of JJCPA-funded programs delivered 41,459 units of service in FY 2012 and 61,416 in FY 2011 – representing a 32% reduction from FY 2011 to FY 2012.

In total, 102,878 units of service was delivered FY 2011 –FY 2012.

One unit of service equals one hour of direct service.

8

Outputs How much did services cost? Services were provided at a cost per unit of service of $22.42 in

FY 2012 and $19.50 in FY 2011

9

Strategies What service strategies were used?

The percentage of time spent on field trips, outings and community service has declined over time from a high of 26% in FY 2008 to a low of 8% in FY 2012. Concurrently, time spent on group workshops and sessions has steadily increased from a low of 39% to a high of 51%.

10

Customer SatisfactionWere customers satisfied with services? Youth customers and parents indicated a good satisfaction rating

with program services, as reflected by the scores of 82.9% and 87.6%, respectively.

11

Developmental Asset Service ProductivityWere services effective in achieving targeted changes? In FY 2012, JJCPA-funded programs achieved a youth-reported

developmental asset service productivity score of 69.0%, representing an increase from FY 2011.

12

Program-Specific Service Productivity

In FY 2012, youth reported a program-specific productivity score of 71.6%, reflecting slight increase from FY 2011.

Local Outcome Measures

13

FY 2012 Results: Aftercare achieved 3 out

of 5 goals.

MAAC achieved 3 out of 3 goals.

SES achieved 2 out of 3 goals.

RJP achieved 2 out of 2 goals.