Use the links below to skip to the appendix you wish to view:

Appendix A—JJCPA Program Descriptions, Expenditures, and Participant Demographics at the Five Counties We Reviewed, Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
Appendix B—Scope and Methodology

Appendix A

JJCPA Program Descriptions, Expenditures, and Participant Demographics at the Five Counties We Reviewed, Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) requested that we identify all JJCPA funds that the five counties we reviewed spent on salaries and benefits for staff at probation departments, law enforcement agencies, and other public agencies, as well as JJCPA funds spent on CBOs. The Audit Committee also requested that we identify certain demographic information for participants in JJCPA‑funded programs at each of the five counties. As we discuss in Chapter 1, the information that counties provided to us about program participants was not always complete or accurate. Nevertheless, this Appendix presents available descriptions, financial information (dollars rounded to thousands), and certain demographic information, such as the race, gender, and age of participants, for each JJCPA‑funded program from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 at each of the five counties we reviewed. We also present this information in an interactive graphic below.

Kern County

Kern operated two programs with JJCPA funding during our audit period. The Aftercare Program focuses on reintegrating previously incarcerated gang members, habitual offenders, and substance abusers to the community, and the Gang Intervention and Suppression Team Program seeks to reduce gang activity. Table A.1 shows percentages of certain demographics for Kern’s JJCPA‑funded programs from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.1
Percentages of Certain Demographics for Kern JJCPA‑Funded Programs During
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	RACE						GENDER			AGE
PROGRAM	AFRICAN-AMERICAN	ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	WHITE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	FEMALE	MALE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	0 TO 9	10 TO 15	16 TO 18	19 TO 25	OTHER OR UNKNOWN
Aftercare	22%	0%	60%	0%	18%	0%	16%	84%	0%	0%	24%	76%	0%	0%
Gang Intervention and Suppression Team	34	0	60	0	5	1	4	95	1	0	4	37	59	0

Source: Data provided by the Kern Probation Department.

Aftercare Program Description

The Aftercare Program serves juveniles as they transition from custody to the community and who, because of their level of delinquent behavior, require intensive supervision. The primary goal of the program is to increase the number of juvenile offenders who successfully transition from custody to community by eliminating their criminal and delinquent behaviors. Participants are typically probationers who may be criminal street gang members, gang‑affiliated violent offenders, habitual offenders, or substance abusers. Probation officers monitor participants’ completion of court‑ordered programs, restitution payments, weekly reporting, school attendance and behavior, and any new law violations. Officers also monitor juveniles on probation whom they refer to community agencies, and they help design appropriate transition plans for these individuals as they reenter the community. Table A.2 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.2
Aftercare Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$1,175,000	$0	$0	$0
2014–15	1,326,000	0	0	0
2015–16	1,037,000	0	0	0
2016–17	1,357,000	0	0	0
2017–18	1,386,000	0	0	0
Totals	$6,281,000	$0	$0	$0

Source: Kern expenditure data.

Gang Intervention and Suppression Team Program Description

The Gang Intervention and Suppression Team Program identifies gang members in target areas and monitors them for gang activity. The program focuses on suppression activities and intelligence‑gathering activities to develop specific and detailed information on each gang member and proof of gang affiliation. The program’s probation officers also supervise juveniles with identified gang involvement who were previously incarcerated and have returned to the community or who are on probation. Probationary case management includes frequent contact with juveniles on probation. Table A.3 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.3
Gang Intervention and Suppression Team Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$1,094,000	$0	$0	$0
2014–15	1,080,000	0	0	0
2015–16	1,229,000	0	0	0
2016–17	1,280,000	0	0	0
2017–18	1,337,000	0	0	0
Totals	$6,020,000	$0	$0	$0

Source: Kern expenditure data.

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles operated 13 programs with JJCPA funding during our audit period. These programs provided mental health treatment, intensive family and community‑based therapy, school‑based probation supervision, substance abuse intervention, gender‑specific services for girls, after‑school enrichment and supervision, housing‑based day supervision, assistance for probationers transitioning from custody to the community, writing classes, and coordinated support to decrease ongoing delinquency, among other services. The county also funded a program aimed at abolishing chronic truancy, and it operated several one‑time projects using growth funds to enhance existing services. Table A.4 shows percentages of certain demographics for Los Angeles’s JJCPA‑funded programs during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.4
Percentages of Certain Demographics for Los Angeles JJCPA‑Funded Programs During
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	RACE						GENDER			AGE
PROGRAM	AFRICAN-AMERICAN	ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	WHITE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	FEMALE	MALE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	0 TO 9	10 TO 15	16 TO 18	19 TO 25	OTHER OR UNKNOWN
Abolish Chronic Truancy	1%	0%	42%	0%	0%	57%	34%	36%	30%	63%	37%	0%	0%	0%
After‑School Enrichment and Supervision	11	0	41	0	0	48	29	30	41	2	59	32	0	7
Early Intervention and Diversion*	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Gender Specific Services	16	2	71	1	4	6	97	1	2	1	65	31	0	3
High Risk/High Needs	27	1	64	0	4	4	20	78	2	0	17	81	0	2
Housing‑Based Day Supervision	36	2	59	0	1	2	58	42	0	4	74	21	0	1
Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Treatment	32	0	60	0	6	2	22	78	0	0	32	67	1	0
Multi‑Systemic Therapy	22	1	66	0	4	7	24	74	2	6	85	6	0	3
One‑Time Projects*	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
School‑Based Supervision^†	18	2	69	1	5	5	35	64	1	0	56	41	0	3
Special Needs Court	24	1	58	0	13	4	36	64	0	0	40	59	1	0
Writing	37	1	54	0	7	1	44	56	0	0	35	64	1	0
Youth Substance Abuse Intervention	18	1	72	0	6	3	16	83	1	0	25	52	1	22

Source: Data provided by the Los Angeles Probation Department.

* The county did not provide demographic data for the program.

^† According to the county, demographics for this program are by calendar year.

Abolish Chronic Truancy Program Description

Abolish Chronic Truancy Program is a Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office program that targets chronically truant youth in selected elementary schools. The program objectives are to improve school attendance through parent and child accountability while parents still exercise control over children and to ensure that youth who are at risk of truancy or excessive absences attend school. The program goals are to reduce truancy at selected schools, address attendance problems before children’s behavior is ingrained, and improve school performance. The program refers youth with chronic truancy to the district attorney’s office, which notifies the parents of the truant youth and follows up with formal criminal filings if the parents fail to take appropriate corrective action. Table A.5 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.5
Abolish Chronic Truancy Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$8,000	$354,000	$0	$0
2014–15	8,000	392,000	0	0
2015–16	11,000	394,000	0	0
2016–17	10,000	398,000	0	0
2017–18	12,000	398,000	0	0
Totals	$49,000	$1,936,000	$0	$0

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

After‑School Enrichment and Supervision Program Description

The After‑School Enrichment and Supervision Program strives to reduce juvenile crime by monitoring probationers’ peer associations, providing homework assistance, and involving at‑risk youth and probationers in prosocial activities. Multiple city and county organizations, such as city and county parks and recreation departments, county offices of education, local school districts, probation departments, and CBOs, collaborate to provide after‑school enrichment and supervision for both juveniles on probation and at‑risk youth. These programs take place at county and city parks, schools, and CBOs. Services are offered from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., when at‑risk youth and probationers are most likely to be without adult supervision. Table A.6 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.6
After‑School Enrichment and Supervision Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$883,000	$81,000	$510,000	$0
2014–15	926,000	101,000	606,000	0
2015–16	808,000	105,000	602,000	0
2016–17	721,000	100,000	618,000	0
2017–18	726,000	64,000	555,000	0
Totals	$4,064,000	$451,000	$2,891,000	$0

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Early Intervention and Diversion Program Description

The Early Intervention and Diversion Program provides at‑risk youth and their families with coordinated supportive services intended to decrease the likelihood of ongoing delinquency and to keep youth and families out of the justice system. The program provides services to youth and their families whom the probation department has investigated for offenses that it does not refer to the district attorney. The goal of the program is to ensure that youth and their families receive health, mental health, and other services that enhance the family unit and divert youth from entering the juvenile justice system. Table A.7 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.7
Early Intervention and Diversion Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14*	–	–	–	–
2014–15*	–	–	–	–
2015–16	$397,000	$0	$0	$0
2016–17	518,000	0	0	0
2017–18	480,000	0	0	1,000
Totals	$1,395,000	$0	$0	$1,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

* The program did not receive funding in this year.

Gender Specific Services Program Description

The Gender Specific Services Program focuses on helping girls develop knowledge, skills, and experiences that will promote health and resiliency. The program aims to provide essential elements of effective gender‑specific services for adolescent girls, including the following:

Space that is physically and emotionally safe and removed from the demands for attention of adolescent males.
Time for girls to talk and to conduct emotionally safe, comforting, challenging, nurturing conversations within ongoing relationships.
Opportunities for girls to develop relationships of trust and interdependence with other women already present in their lives.
Programs that draw on girls’ cultural strengths rather than focusing primarily on the individual girl.
Mentors who share experiences that resonate with the realities of girls’ lives and who exemplify survival and growth.
Education about women’s health, including female development, pregnancy, contraception, and disease prevention, along with opportunities for girls to define healthy sexuality on their own terms, rather than as victims.

Table A.8 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.8
Gender Specific Services Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$28,000	$0	$0	$759,000
2014–15	28,000	0	0	885,000
2015–16	39,000	0	0	741,000
2016–17	33,000	0	0	677,000
2017–18	16,000	0	0	533,000
Totals	$144,000	$0	$0	$3,595,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

High Risk/High Needs Program Description

The High Risk/High Needs Program targets juvenile probationers who are transitioning from certain facilities to the community, as well as those under other types of supervision who are high risk. Many of these juveniles are involved with gangs, use drugs and alcohol, are low academic performers, and have risk factors across multiple domains. Offenders with these profiles are at high risk for committing new crimes upon reentry to the community. The program consists of home‑based services and employment services for juveniles on probation, with the aim of improving school performance, strengthening the family and parental skills, and linking juveniles on probation to job training and placement. Table A.9 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.9
High Risk/High Needs Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$1,939,000	$230,000	$169,000	$2,562,000
2014–15	1,949,000	287,000	103,000	2,122,000
2015–16	1,464,000	299,000	106,000	2,716,000
2016–17	538,000	286,000	116,000	2,549,000
2017–18	494,000	574,000	162,000	2,263,000
Totals	$6,384,000	$1,676,000	$656,000	$12,212,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Housing‑Based Day Supervision Program Description

The Housing‑Based Day Supervision Program provides day, evening, and weekend supervision and services for juveniles on probation, at‑risk youth, and their families who live in specific housing developments within the county. The program also assists the families of juveniles on probation to access resources and services that will help them become self‑sufficient, thereby reducing risk factors associated with juvenile delinquency. The program’s goals are to provide early‑intervention services for at‑risk youth, daily monitoring of juveniles on probation, and enhanced family services to juveniles on probation and at‑risk youth. Its goals also include increasing school attendance and performance and reducing crime rates in the housing units. The program places probation officers at selected public housing developments to provide day services and supervision for juveniles on probation, at‑risk youth, and their families. The program is designed to empower parents with the skills, resources, and support needed to effectively parent their children. Table A.10 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.10
Housing‑Based Day Supervision Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$24,000	$81,000	$772,000	$0
2014–15	24,000	101,000	776,000	0
2015–16	33,000	105,000	803,000	0
2016–17	28,000	100,000	692,000	0
2017–18	33,000	64,000	864,000	0
Totals	$142,000	$451,000	$3,907,000	$0

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Treatment Program Description

The Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Treatment Program screens, assesses, and treats juveniles who are newly admitted to juvenile hall. Upon admission, mental health professionals screen all juveniles to identify those who need treatment and follow‑up care for mental health or substance abuse disorders and to develop individual treatment plans accordingly. In conjunction with treatment providers, probation officers and case managers supervise the juveniles. Table A.11 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.11
Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Treatment Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$90,000	$0	$3,335,000	$626,000
2014–15	90,000	0	3,321,000	614,000
2015–16	123,000	0	3,212,000	482,000
2016–17	106,000	0	3,846,000	532,000
2017–18	128,000	0	3,808,000	545,000
Totals	$537,000	$0	$17,522,000	$2,799,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Multi‑Systemic Therapy Program Description

The Multi‑Systemic Therapy (MST) Program comprises CBOs that provide intensive family and community‑based treatment to address all environmental factors that affect chronic and violent juvenile offenders and their homes, families, schools, teachers, neighborhoods, and friends. MST works with juvenile offenders who have long histories of arrests. Its interventions aim to reduce risk factors by building individual and family strengths on an individualized and comprehensive basis. MST practitioners are available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and provide services in the home at times convenient to families to circumvent the barriers to accessing services that families of serious juvenile offenders often encounter. Table A.12 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.12
Multi‑Systemic Therapy Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$10,000	$0	$0	$272,000
2014–15	10,000	0	0	240,000
2015–16	14,000	0	0	186,000
2016–17	12,000	0	59,000	270,000
2017–18	12,000	0	2,000	323,000
Totals	$58,000	$0	$61,000	$1,291,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

One‑Time Projects Program Description

From fiscal years 2015–16 through 2017–18, the county used one‑time growth funds to support or expand various existing programs and services and to fund new projects. For example, the county funded multiple programs that target diversion, prevention, and early intervention throughout the county, such as mental health drug counseling services and services provided by various CBOs. It also used these funds for after‑school enrichment and employment services, a Safe Passages program to help youth safely travel to and from school, arts programs aimed at improving youths’ problem‑solving skills and social competence through creative expression in different art forms, other supportive services, and a comprehensive JJCPA evaluation. Table A.13 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.13
One‑Time Projects Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14*	–	–	–	–
2014–15*	–	–	–	–
2015–16	$0	$0	$0	$156,000
2016–17	68,000	0	74,000	1,900,000
2017–18	132,000	82,000	700,000	3,545,000
Totals	$200,000	$82,000	$774,000	$5,601,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Note: The table includes expenditures for programs Los Angeles reported to Community Corrections. Specifically, the county indicated the following program names were one-time projects: Enhanced School and Community Services Program, New Programs, Expanded Programs, and 8.4 Million Programs. According to the Los Angeles Probation Department, the county uses these names for internal tracking and for reporting expenditures to Community Corrections.

* The program did not receive funding in this year.

School‑Based Supervision Program Description

The main objective of the School‑Based Supervision Program is to reduce crime and delinquency in 85 high‑risk neighborhoods in the county by providing school‑based probation supervision and services for juveniles on probation and at‑risk youth in schools. A secondary goal is to enhance protective factors through improved school performance. Among other services, school‑based probation officers assess the strengths of and risk factors for juveniles on probation; use evidence‑based treatment interventions; and provide prosocial adult modeling, advocacy, and post‑probation planning with the juvenile and his or her family. Table A.14 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.14
School‑Based Supervision Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$10,275,000	$230,000	$0	$131,000
2014–15	11,898,000	287,000	0	224,000
2015–16	10,977,000	299,000	0	229,000
2016–17	11,913,000	286,000	0	194,000
2017–18	11,978,000	183,000	0	293,000
Totals	$57,041,000	$1,285,000	$0	$1,071,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Special Needs Court Program Description

The Special Needs Court Program is a full‑time court specifically designed and staffed to supervise juvenile offenders who suffer from diagnosed serious mental illnesses, organic brain impairments, or developmental disabilities. The court ensures that these juveniles receive proper mental health treatment both in custody and in the community. The program’s goals are to reduce rearrest rates for juvenile offenders diagnosed with mental health problems and to increase the number of juveniles who receive appropriate mental health treatment. Table A.15 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.15
Special Needs Court Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$213,000	$166,000	$554,000	$315,000
2014–15	213,000	166,000	554,000	315,000
2015–16	222,000	166,000	554,000	316,000
2016–17	217,000	166,000	554,000	316,000
2017–18	224,000	166,000	554,000	316,000
Totals	$1,089,000	$830,000	$2,770,000	$1,578,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Writing Program Description

The Writing Program aims to reduce crime by teaching interpersonal skills through a biweekly writing class for juveniles subject to long‑term detention in juvenile hall. The program is voluntary and uses writing to develop juveniles’ interpersonal and communication skills. It teaches program participants creative writing to discourage juvenile violence, replacing it with a spirit of honest introspection, values, and skill building. Participants meet weekly, in sessions led by professional writers, to write and critique their written work with others in the group. The program guides participants in their writing and discussions, providing them with an experience in building a supportive community. Table A.16 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.16
Writing Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$4,000	$0	$0	$193,000
2014–15	4,000	0	0	209,000
2015–16	6,000	0	0	197,000
2016–17	5,000	0	0	208,000
2017–18	6,000	0	0	215,000
Totals	$25,000	$0	$0	$1,022,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Youth Substance Abuse Intervention Program Description

The Youth Substance Abuse Intervention Program provides holistic treatment through individual, family, and group counseling that focuses on the roots of problems and not just on the substance abuse manifestation. The program’s goals are to reduce crime and antisocial behavior and to reduce the number of participants with positive drug tests. A central focus of the program is to ensure that high‑risk juveniles on probation who are transitioning from certain facility settings to the community see community‑based substance abuse treatment providers within 36 hours of their release from those facilities. The program also conducts drug testing to verify abstinence and program progress. Substance abuse treatment providers work collaboratively with school‑based probation officers to develop case plans for juveniles that address their risk factors and provide them with substance abuse refusal skill training and a relapse‑prevention plan. Table A.17 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.17
Youth Substance Abuse Intervention Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$21,000	$0	$0	$1,011,000
2014–15	21,000	0	0	1,011,000
2015–16	29,000	0	0	1,011,000
2016–17	25,000	0	0	1,011,000
2017–18	6,000	0	0	115,000
Totals	$102,000	$0	$0	$4,159,000

Source: Los Angeles expenditure data.

Mendocino County

Mendocino operated one JJCPA‑funded program from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18. The Rural Gang Unit Program provides probation supervision and services to juveniles on probation and youth involved with gangs. Table A.18 shows percentages of certain demographics for Mendocino’s JJCPA‑funded program during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2015–16.

Table A.18
Percentages of Certain Demographics for Mendocino JJCPA‑Funded Programs During
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2015–16
	RACE						GENDER			AGE
PROGRAM	AFRICAN-AMERICAN	ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	WHITE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	FEMALE	MALE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	0 TO 9	10 TO 15	16 TO 18	19 TO 25	OTHER OR UNKNOWN
Rural Gang Unit	3%	0%	63%	13%	18%	3%	12%	88%	0%	0%	55%	45%	0%	0%

Source: Data provided by the Mendocino Probation Department.

Note: Mendocino explained that it did not collect participant data for its JJCPA program for fiscal years 2016–17 and 2017–18 because Community Corrections ceased requiring counties to submit such data effective for fiscal year 2016–17. According to the probation department, the data reported also reflects only individuals actively supervised on probation or otherwise involved with the probation department. However, the probation department indicated that the program provided prevention and education services to youth who were not on probation, but it did not collect data on those individuals.

Rural Gang Unit Program Description

The Rural Gang Unit Program provides elevated and more intense probation supervision to juveniles who have been involved in gang activities. Probation officers, who focus on local schools with increased levels of gang activity, provide juveniles on probation, at‑risk youth, and their families with referrals for services, including individual and family counseling, anger management, tutoring, community service, and after‑school activities. This program contracts with the Mendocino County Youth Project for services. Table A.19 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.19
Rural Gang Unit Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$159,000	$0	$0	$0
2014–15	243,000	0	0	0
2015–16	256,000	0	0	0
2016–17	242,000	0	0	0
2017–18	251,000	0	0	0
Totals	$1,151,000	$0	$0	$0

Source: Mendocino expenditure data.

San Joaquin County

San Joaquin operated five programs with JJCPA funding during our audit period. These programs place probation officers on school campuses to supervise juveniles on probation who are attending school and provide a day reporting center as an alternative to detention. The county has also established neighborhood service centers to engage youth and their families, both before and after they interact with law enforcement, and a family‑focused intervention team to assist parents who are on probation and thereby help reduce the significant risk factors that exist for their children. In addition, the county has integrated policies and procedures that focus on positive youth development, trauma‑informed care, and other services that promote improved health and social outcomes for certain youth. Table A.20 shows percentages of certain demographics for San Joaquin’s JJCPA‑funded programs during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.20
Percentages of Certain Demographics for San Joaquin JJCPA‑Funded Programs During
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	RACE						GENDER			AGE
PROGRAM	AFRICAN-AMERICAN	ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	WHITE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	FEMALE	MALE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	0 TO 9	10 TO 15	16 TO 18	19 TO 25	OTHER OR UNKNOWN
Family Focused Intervention Team*	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
JJCPA Oversight and Positive Youth Justice Initiative*	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Neighborhood Service Centers*	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Probation Officers on Campus	36%	8%	42%	0%	12%	2%	13%	87%	0%	0%	33%	66%	1%	0%
Reconnect Day Reporting Center	46	2	40	1	10	1	12	88	0	0	35	65	0	0

Source: Data provided by San Joaquin County Probation Department.

* The county did not provide demographic data for the program.

Family Focused Intervention Team Program Description

The Family Focused Intervention Team (FFIT) Program provides case management services to parents who are on probation, a situation that could cause significant risk factors to children in their homes. The goal of the program is to intervene in these high‑risk families to prevent or reduce violence in the home by providing demonstrated programs that directly address the families’ needs. The long‑term goal of FFIT is to positively affect at‑risk children to prevent them from entering the juvenile justice system. By offering supervision and support, the program helps parents provide an appropriate environment in which to raise children and remain crime‑free. Targeted families include those who are experiencing homelessness or whose members suffer from mental illnesses or substance abuse. FFIT officers conduct visits both in the office and at families’ homes to monitor compliance with court‑ordered conditions of probation, refer families to programs, and complete individualized case plans to address these families’ needs. Table A.21 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.21
Family Focused Intervention Team Program Expenditures for
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14*	–	–	–	–
2014–15*	–	–	–	–
2015–16*	–	–	–	–
2016–17*	–	–	–	–
2017–18	$193,000	$0	$0	$0
Totals	$193,000	$0	$0	$0

Source: San Joaquin expenditure data.

* The program did not receive funding in this year.

JJCPA Oversight and Positive Youth Justice Initiative Program Description

Beginning in 2012, the Sierra Health Foundation for the Positive Youth Justice Initiative provided a grant to the probation department. The grant focused on positive youth development, trauma‑informed care, and other services to promote improved health and social outcomes for youth who are at risk of or are fluctuating between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The probation department embedded these cornerstones into its policies, procedures, and practices, and although the grant ended in December 2017, the probation department used JJCPA funds to sustain key pieces of the initiative. It continues to function as the liaison between CBOs and probation officers—scheduling and hosting youth orientations and managing and overseeing referrals to CBOs. Table A.22 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.22
JJCPA Oversight and Positive Youth Justice Initiative Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14*	–	–	–	–
2014–15*	–	–	–	–
2015–16*	–	–	–	–
2016–17*	–	–	–	–
2017–18	$111,000	$0	$0	$0
Totals	$111,000	$0	$0	$0

Source: San Joaquin expenditure data for JJCPA funds only.

* The program did not receive funding in this year.

Neighborhood Service Centers Program Description

The Neighborhood Service Centers (Neighborhood Service) Program uses a multidisciplinary team approach to work with at‑risk and justice‑involved youth and their families. The centers engage youth and their parents or guardians both before and after they interact with law enforcement. The program’s primary functions are to facilitate neighborhood‑driven initiatives; transform social service delivery in the county by enabling families to easily access services and resources where they are; and provide comprehensive, integrated services, including prevention of issues such as obesity, truancy, and unemployment. Neighborhood Service enables service providers to efficiently convene and coordinate multidisciplinary services. Each center offers intake and assessments, resources and referrals, integrated family plans, leadership development, health insurance enrollment assistance, health and nutritional education, health screening, preventive care, counseling, youth development groups, and parenting groups. Table A.23 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.23
Neighborhood Service Centers Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$0	$0	$0	$600,000
2014–15	68,000	0	0	550,000
2015–16	0	0	0	650,000
2016–17	5,000	0	0	500,000
2017–18	0	0	0	650,000
Totals	$73,000	$0	$0	$2,950,000

Source: San Joaquin expenditure data.

Probation Officers on Campus Program Description

Under the Probation Officers on Campus (POOC) Program, probation officers provide intensive supervision at school sites to students on probation, monitor the probationers’ attendance, assist in handling disciplinary problems, and work with school staff to address probationers’ mental health, substance abuse, and other issues relevant to their behavior. POOC officers have regular contact with at‑risk youth who have not yet entered into the juvenile justice system, and when parents, teachers, and school administrators refer these youth, the officers provide them intervention and referral services. The POOC Program also operates a canine team, which searches for and detects narcotics to assist in the supervision, care, custody, and control of participants. Table A.24 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.24
Probation Officers on Campus Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$915,000	$0	$0	$0
2014–15	689,000	0	0	0
2015–16	793,000	0	0	0
2016–17	940,000	0	0	0
2017–18	913,000	0	0	0
Totals	$4,250,000	$0	$0	$0

Source: San Joaquin expenditure data.

Reconnect Day Reporting Center Program Description

The Reconnect Day Reporting Center (Reconnect) Program is a collaborative effort between the San Joaquin County Probation Department, San Joaquin County Office of Education, and Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin. It provides an alternative to detention, with educational services and other programs and services demonstrated to be effective in rebuilding family relationships. Reconnect’s two major objectives are to provide a comprehensive alternative to detention by establishing a day reporting center and to reduce recidivism by providing targeted programs to a high‑risk population. Additionally, Reconnect aims to decrease truancy for juveniles on probation by integrating on‑site family services and helping probationers reconnect and remain in the community. Reconnect provides life skills training, including social skills and problem-solving, as well as substance abuse intervention and anger control training. Table A.25 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.25
Reconnect Day Reporting Center Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14*	–	–	–	–
2014–15	$474,000	$0	$0	$0
2015–16	433,000	0	0	0
2016–17	528,000	0	0	70,000
2017–18	516,000	0	0	112,000
Totals	$1,951,000	$0	$0	$182,000

Source: San Joaquin expenditure data.

* The program did not receive funding in this year.

Santa Barbara County

Santa Barbara County operated two programs with JJCPA funding during our audit period—the Early Intervention Community Supervision Program and the School‑Based Officer Community Supervision Program. The programs focused on supervising juvenile probationers and other youth at school sites and intervening with first‑time juvenile offenders with less serious offenses to help them exit from probation supervision sooner than might otherwise be the case. Table A.26 shows percentages of certain demographics for Santa Barbara’s combined JJCPA‑funded programs during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.26
Percentages of Certain Demographics for Santa Barbara Combined JJCPA‑Funded Programs During Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	RACE						GENDER			AGE
PROGRAM	AFRICAN-AMERICAN	ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	WHITE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	FEMALE	MALE	OTHER OR UNKNOWN	0 TO 9	10 TO 15	16 TO 18	19 TO 25	OTHER OR UNKNOWN
Early Intervention Community Supervision and School‑Based Officer Community Supervision	5%	1%	76%	0%	17%	1%	33%	67%	0%	0%	46%	53%	1%	0%

Source: Data provided by the Santa Barbara Probation Department.

Note: Participant demographics have been combined for both programs because Santa Barbara could not always identify to which program its program participants were assigned.

Early Intervention Community Supervision Program Description

This program assigns younger, usually first‑time, offenders to probation officers in an effort to minimize their further involvement with the justice system and deter them from future delinquency. These juvenile offenders often have less serious offenses, and the program’s intent is to release them from probation supervision sooner than what might otherwise be the case. The program also has a counseling component whereby probation officers refer juveniles on probation to individual and family counseling. The goal is to provide effective, time‑limited interventions that increase the involvement of family members. Table A.27 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.27
Early Intervention Community Supervision Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$386,000	$0	$29,000	$97,000
2014–15	402,000	0	3,000	56,000
2015–16	452,000	0	63,000	86,000
2016–17	576,000	0	104,000	109,000
2017–18	624,000	0	154,000	99,000
Totals	$2,440,000	$0	$353,000	$447,000

Source: Santa Barbara expenditure data.

School‑Based Officer Community Supervision Program Description

When the county probation department implemented the School‑Based Officer Community Supervision Program, it assigned probation officers to supervise certain juveniles attending specific schools. The probation officers worked with school administrators, educators, and law enforcement officers at the schools to address delinquency‑ and truancy‑related issues. Probation officers made contact with probation‑supervised juveniles and others at the school. The program targeted older, more justice system‑involved juveniles, and it combined probation supervision with counseling opportunities. Because of caseload capacity and operational considerations, probation officers now supervise these juveniles more traditionally. Specifically, probation officers make contact with juvenile probationers at school sites, but they have less contact than at the program’s inception and that contact generally relates to specific tasks involving the probationers. The program’s counseling component remains unchanged, and the probation department refers probation‑supervised youth for individual and family counseling for reasons including substance abuse, school problems, and family conflict. Table A.28 presents expenditure information for the program for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.

Table A.28
School‑Based Officer Community Supervision Program Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18
	SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF LOCAL AGENCIES
FISCAL YEAR	PROBATION DEPARTMENT	OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	NON‑LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS	CBOs
2013–14	$677,000	$0	$0	$122,000
2014–15	606,000	0	0	72,000
2015–16	636,000	0	0	67,000
2016–17	772,000	0	0	73,000
2017–18	697,000	0	0	66,000
Totals	$3,388,000	$0	$0	$400,000

Source: Santa Barbara expenditure data.

Interactive Graphic

Program Descriptions, Expenditures, and Demographics of Youth Served at the Five Counties We Reviewed
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18

Select a County

Select a Program

The Aftercare Program serves juveniles as they transition from custody to the community and who, because of their level of delinquent behavior, require intensive supervision. The primary goal of the program is to increase the number of juvenile offenders who successfully transition from custody to community by eliminating their criminal and delinquent behaviors. Participants are typically probationers who may be criminal street gang members, gang-affiliated violent offenders, habitual offenders, or substance abusers. Probation officers monitor participants’ completion of court-ordered programs, restitution payments, weekly reporting, school attendance and behavior, and any new law violations. Officers also monitor juveniles on probation whom they refer to community agencies, and they help design appropriate transition plans for these individuals as they reenter the community.

Source: Demographic data provided by Kern County Probation Department. Expenditure data provided by Kern County.

Appendix B

Scope and Methodology

The Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to evaluate the spending, reporting, and evaluation of JJCPA funds by the counties of Kern, Los Angeles, Mendocino, San Joaquin, and Santa Barbara, in addition to their decision‑making processes related to these funds. Table B lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address those objectives.

Table B
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them
AUDIT OBJECTIVE		METHOD
1	Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.	Reviewed relevant federal and state laws, rules, and regulations related to juvenile justice.
2	Identify the agencies that lead the administration of each county’s JJCPA program.	For each of the five counties, interviewed staff at the county probation departments, other county departments, and Community Corrections to identify the county department that administers the JJCPA program. We reviewed counties’ comprehensive plans, Coordinating Council meeting minutes, and websites for relevant documentation to substantiate the statements of the staff we interviewed.
3	Evaluate the counties’ processes for soliciting JJCPA funding applications and awarding JJCPA funds, including the following: a. Whether the application process is the same for all potential grantees, and the availability, extent, and timing of any technical assistance provided.	Reviewed the five counties’ contracting policies and procedures. Based on contract amount and scope of work, judgmentally selected up to 10 JJCPA‑funded contracts per county that were executed by the five counties during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18. Mendocino did not contract with CBOs or other county agencies using JJCPA funding during this period. Reviewed supporting contract documentation to determine whether applicable county policies and procedures were followed. We interviewed staff of county probation departments to determine what technical assistance they provided to potential contractors. Determined that the counties that contracted with other local agencies and CBOs to provide JJCPA‑funded services appropriately followed county procurement and contracting policies for all potential contractors. In all instances where the counties solicited the contracts competitively, the counties provided technical assistance.
3	b. The process for JJCPA funding disbursement and whether contracts differ based on the type of grantee.	Reviewed the selected contracts to identify the counties' processes for paying the contractor and determined that counties appropriately followed their contracting policies and procedures.
4	Review the counties’ processes related to their comprehensive plans and determine the following for each county: a. The number of times the county has revised its comprehensive plan since the JJCPA was enacted, when the last revision occurred, and whether the revision incorporated applicable statutory requirements.	Obtained and reviewed the five counties’ comprehensive plans for fiscal years 2001–02 through 2019–20 to determine whether the plans included the components the JJCPA requires and the extent to which those components changed during the period. We interviewed county and Community Corrections staff to confirm when no plan was available for review.
	b. The processes and accountability measures for writing the comprehensive plan and ensuring its accuracy.	Reviewed available bylaws for Coordinating Councils and interviewed staff from county probation departments and members of the councils to determine whether processes were in place for each county’s council to develop, review, and approve the comprehensive plan. Because Mendocino did not have a council during our audit period, we interviewed only staff from the probation department.
	c. Whether the county’s Coordinating Council is required to obtain approval of the comprehensive plan from the county board of supervisors, as authorized by statute, and, if so, whether the Coordinating Council’s decisions have ever been overturned during the last five fiscal years.	Reviewed available bylaws for the Coordinating Councils to determine if the county boards of supervisors are required to approve comprehensive plans. Although county boards of supervisors are not required to approve the plans, Kern and Los Angeles submit their plans to the board of supervisors for approval, who have not rejected any of the plans they received in the last five fiscal years.
5	Determine whether the counties had any accumulated, unspent JJCPA funds from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18, the amount and explanations for any unspent funds, and whether there is a plan for distributing unspent funds.	Obtained county accounting records and supporting payment documentation to identify the total amount of JJCPA funds each county spent for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18. We obtained allocation information from the Department of Finance and payment information from the State Controller’s Office to determine the amount of JJCPA funds allocated to each county during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18. We compared total allocations to each county for each year with their annual JJCPA expenditures to determine the amount of unspent funds. Interviewed staff at each county to gain an understanding of their JJCPA budget processes. We then compared the counties’ budgeted and actual JJCPA expenditures to determine the accuracy of county budget estimates. Interviewed county staff to obtain their perspectives on unspent funds, including the factors that hinder the counties from spending all of the funds and whether the counties have any plans to reduce fund reserves.
6	Evaluate the authorities, roles, and responsibilities of each county’s Coordinating Council and its individual members, and determine whether the Coordinating Council has complied with state law. Determine the following information related to each Coordinating Council: a. The members of the Coordinating Council over the past five fiscal years and what categories of representation they fulfill.	Researched best practices for nonprofit board bylaws. Reviewed Coordinating Council bylaws for Kern, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara. Mendocino did not have a council during our audit period, and San Joaquin did not have bylaws for its council. Reviewed available rosters and meeting minutes for all council meetings held by the four counties during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 to determine whether council representation complied with state law.
	b. Whether all Coordinating Council members have equal powers, access to information, and decision‑making authority.	Reviewed Coordinating Council bylaws for Kern, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara to determine whether they specify the roles, responsibilities, and powers of the council members. Mendocino did not have a council during our audit period, and San Joaquin did not have bylaws for its council. Interviewed probation department staff and council members to determine their role and decision‑making authority in council meetings. Reviewed available minutes for all council meetings held by the four counties with councils during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 to understand their decision‑making processes for their comprehensive plan.
	c. Which agency and position facilitates Coordinating Council meetings, how frequently those meetings occur, and whether the meetings comply with state law applicable to open meetings.	Reviewed Coordinating Council bylaws for Kern, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara to determine whether they included specific meeting requirements, such as frequency of meetings. Mendocino did not have a council during our audit period, and San Joaquin did not have bylaws for its council. Interviewed probation department officials and council members to determine which agency and position facilitates council meetings. Reviewed available minutes for all council meetings held by the four counties during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 to determine the frequency of meetings and whether a quorum was established during the meetings. Reviewed county processes for posting council meeting agendas to determine whether they complied with open meeting act requirements, and verified that the counties posted agendas for the meetings they held during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 in accordance with applicable state law.
	d. The bylaws, protocols, procedures, or other governance guidelines the county has established to support the Coordinating Council’s decision‑making process.	Reviewed Coordinating Council bylaws for Kern, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara to understand their decision‑making processes. Mendocino did not have a council during our audit period, and San Joaquin did not have bylaws for its council. Interviewed probation department officials and council members to understand the guidelines the counties established to support the councils’ decision‑making processes and to understand how San Joaquin’s council makes decisions without bylaws.
7	Identify the data JJCPA grantees provide to each Coordinating Council and whether this varies based on the type of grantee. Determine the following for each county: a. The steps the county takes to ensure JJCPA funds are allocated to programs and CBOs that are effective in achieving the goals of the JJCPA.	Interviewed officials from county probation departments and county procurement departments to understand what deliverables, if any, they required their contractors to submit to fulfill their contracts. Mendocino did not contract with CBOs or other county agencies using JJCPA funding during this period. Reviewed relevant county policies, procedures, and contracts to determine whether they specify how contractors will be evaluated. Reviewed supporting documentation for the contracts at Kern, Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Santa Barbara that we selected for Objective 3 to determine if the counties ensured that JJCPA funds were allocated to programs and CBOs that are effective.
7	b. The county’s process for monitoring program funding.	Interviewed staff from county probation departments and county procurement departments to understand their processes for monitoring program funding. Reviewed relevant probation department policies, procedures, and contracts to determine whether counties followed their monitoring processes. Reviewed supporting documentation for the contracts at Kern, Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Santa Barbara that we selected for Objective 3 to determine whether the counties followed their contract monitoring processes. Determined that the counties that contracted with other agencies to provide JJCPA‑funded services appropriately followed county policies when monitoring program funding.
8	For fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18, analyze the following county data by fiscal year, including agency name, organization name, and expenditure description, where applicable: a. Total JJCPA funds budgeted per program. b. Total JJCPA‑reported expenditures per program. c. Total JJCPA funds spent on probation department salaries and benefits. d. Total JJCPA funds spent on other law enforcement agency salaries and benefits. e. Total JJCPA funds spent on non‑law enforcement public agency salaries and benefits. f. Total JJCPA funds spent on CBOs, and identify those organizations whose primary locations are in the communities they are serving.	Obtained budget and financial documentation at each county’s probation department for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 to identify the JJCPA funds budgeted and the actual expenditures, including for probation department, other law enforcement agencies, and non‑law enforcement agencies salaries and benefits; for CBOs; and for any other JJCPA expenses for each program. Reviewed contracting documentation for Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Santa Barbara and conducted online searches to identify headquarter locations for CBOs providing services in the counties. We found CBOs were generally located in the county where they provided services. Kern and Mendocino did not contract with any CBOs during our audit period.
9	Determine the percentage of each county’s probation department budget that the JJCPA funded for each year from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.	Using the budget and financial documentation obtained in Objective 8, determined the percentage of each county’s probation department budget that was supported by JJCPA funds for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18. The percentage of each county’s probation department budget supported by JJCPA funds ranged from roughly 2 percent to 3 percent, depending on the county.
10	Determine the dollar amount and percentage of each county’s JJCPA expenditures for the last five fiscal years that were used to supervise at‑risk youth with no prior arrests or contact with the juvenile court. Perform the following for each county: a. Identify expenditures and program descriptions by agency and fiscal year.	Determined that because of limitations in the data counties provided, we could not accurately assess the expenditures specific to at‑risk youth with no prior arrests or contact with juvenile court associated with each county program. As we discuss in Chapter 1, some counties could not identify all of the youth that participated in each of their programs, and some did not track participant data for some of their programs.
10	b. Identify the probation department’s definition of at‑risk youth for service design, or indicate if no definition exists.	Interviewed probation staff at each county to identify each county’s definition of at‑risk youth. Reviewed each county’s comprehensive plan to determine whether it included a definition of at‑risk youth.
11	To the extent possible, determine the total number of youth that have been served by each county’s JJCPA‑funded programs and services in the past five fiscal years by program, race, age, gender, zip code, and charges or activities warranting intervention, and list by program and fiscal year.	Determined how the counties track the total population and demographic data of those served by JJCPA funds, and determined whether the county tracks population and demographic data by program. Requested from each of the five counties a list of all participants, including their demographics and data on arrests or activities warranting intervention, who participated in the county’s programs or services funded by the JJCPA at any time for fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.
12	Determine whether each county spends JJCPA funds for services or programs for youth described under state law, including, but not limited to, specific sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code, including but not limited to sections 236, 654, and 654.2. Under each of the above referenced code sections, identify the amount of JJCPA funds spent on programs or services run by probation departments, other law enforcement agencies, non‑law enforcement public agencies, and CBOs.	Determined we could not accurately assess the expenditures associated with youth described under specific Welfare and Institutions Code sections because of limitations in the data that counties provided. As we discuss in Chapter 1, some counties could not identify all of the youth that participated in each of their programs and some did not track participant data for some of their programs. Interviewed probation department staff to understand the relationship between an individual’s Welfare and Institutions Code disposition and program assignment. The counties generally indicated that youth are not assigned to programs based on their Welfare and Institutions Code status, but by their individual needs.
13	To the extent possible, determine whether JJCPA‑funded programs effectively reduce interactions between youth and the juvenile justice system, including law enforcement agencies.	Interviewed county probation department staff to determine whether each county has a process for evaluating the effectiveness of its JJCPA‑funded programs. Reviewed evaluation reports to identify methodologies, criteria, limitations, and data the evaluators used to assess the effectiveness of JJCPA programs.
14	To understand the State’s JJCPA grant program administration, evaluate the following information related to the role of Community Corrections in administering the JJCPA grant program: a. How Community Corrections uses its budget for purposes of administering the JJCPA grant program.	Obtained and analyzed program cost information from Community Corrections to determine the total cost—through staff time—to administer the JJCPA program from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2018–19.
14	b. Community Corrections’ processes and standards for ensuring county compliance with JJCPA statutory requirements, and the established protocol if Community Corrections finds that a county is not in compliance with state law.	Interviewed Community Corrections staff and reviewed processes and procedures to determine and evaluate the extent and adequacy of Community Corrections’ oversight of the JJCPA. Interviewed county staff to develop an understanding of their interactions with Community Corrections.
15	To understand the State’s JJCPA program data collection process, determine the following information related to Community Corrections’ data on JJCPA‑funded programs, to the extent possible: a. The number of youth statewide who have been served by JJCPA‑funded programs or services in the past five fiscal years, disaggregated by race, gender, age, zip code, and charges or activities warranting intervention.	Reviewed relevant state laws and counties’ year‑end reports to identify JJCPA reporting requirements. We determined that the State does not collect participant information from counties. Therefore, we are unable to present statewide information regarding data about at‑risk youth and juvenile offenders who have been served by JJCPA‑funded programs.
	b. To the extent that statewide data are available, from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18, analyze the following statewide data by fiscal year: i. Total JJCPA funds budgeted per program. ii. Total JJCPA‑reported expenditures per program. iii. Total JJCPA funds spent on probation department salaries and benefits. iv. Total JJCPA funds spent on other law enforcement agency salaries and benefits. v. Total JJCPA funds spent on non‑law enforcement public agency salaries and benefits. vi. Total JJCPA funds spent on CBOs.	Reviewed available JJCPA program data from Community Corrections to identify and aggregate certain statewide financial information for the JJCPA program reported during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18.
	c. The number of counties statewide that have reported using JJCPA funds to provide services or programs for youth identified under state law, including, but not limited to, Welfare and Institutions Code sections 236, 654, and 654.2. Under each of the above referenced code sections, determine the amount of JJCPA funds spent on services and programs run by probation departments, other law enforcement agencies, non‑law enforcement public agencies, and CBOs.	Using the JJCPA program information we reviewed in Objective 15b, identified the amount counties used for JJCPA programs in fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18. However, we determined that we could not identify the number of counties using JJCPA funds to serve youth under specific sections of state law because the State does not collect this information from counties. As a result, we also could not disaggregate the amount of JJCPA funds spent on services and programs operated by probation, other law enforcement and non‑law enforcement agencies, and CBOs that serve those youth.
16	Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.	Determined that most of the counties we reviewed thought that JJCPA growth funding was potentially unstable. As a result, we reviewed the current JJCPA funding process for base and growth funds to identify the steps the Legislature should take to stabilize the JJCPA funding provided to counties.

Source: Analysis of the Audit Committee’s audit request number 2019‑116, state law, and information and documentation identified in the column titled Method.

Assessment of Data Reliability

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily required to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer‑processed information that we use to support findings, conclusions, and recommendations. In performing this audit, we relied on data provided by the counties to address portions of objectives 10, 11, and 12 related to information about JJCPA‑funded program participants. To evaluate these data, we reviewed existing information about the data, interviewed staff knowledgeable about the data systems, and compared the data to a selection of records the counties maintained in their case management systems. As we describe in Chapter 1, we found overarching problems with the data that counties maintained related to participants in their JJCPA programs. Specifically, some counties did not track program participants in some years, some counties could not identify all of their program participants, and one county could not identify the programs in which some youth participated. As a result, we determined that the data each county provided to us are not sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. Nevertheless, because these data represent the only source for this information, we use them to present a breakdown in Appendix A of the counties’ JJCPA program participants by age, gender, and race. Although the problems we identified with the data may affect the precision of some of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.