Browse
Search
JCPC minutes 080516
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
JCPC minutes 080516
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2018 2:22:22 PM
Creation date
9/4/2018 2:19:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/5/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
JCPC agenda 080516
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Juvenile Crime Prevention Council\Agendas\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Volunteers for Youth – Numbers were down in both programs for the year due to low referral <br />numbers because there have been less youth coming into the juvenile justice system. Teen Court <br />program met all measureable objectives and Community Service & Restitution program met all <br />objectives except the one where the youth would complete their community service/restitution in <br />the required time frame (Goal – 70%, Actual – 66%). <br />Freedom House – FAN served 50 clients (goal was 70) and family consultation program served <br />229 (goal was 175). Program offered 7 Common Sense Parenting classes, with 40 parents <br />completing. Psych Services completed 20 assessments (goal was 25). <br />The last year has been a transitional year with fluctuation in staff hours which may have <br />accounted for not meeting all the numbers. They continued to offer monthly workshops for <br />parents and providers, although the frequency of the workshops has been less than in past year. <br />Linda Boldin is certified in Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) and Georgia Gamcsik was <br />certified as Mental Health First Aid Instructor. <br />Dispute Settlement Center – Restorative Justice Program was estimated to serve 15 and they <br />served 19 with 18 of 19 meeting all the program objectives. Family Table met all objectives <br />except successful/satisfactory completion of the program. This objective wasn’t met because 1 <br />youth was transferred out of town, 2 sisters couldn’t finish because mom was having <br />transportation difficulties, and 1 was transferred to an inpatient program. <br />They have had a really successful year; are expanding and doing a lot of collaboration with <br />Orange County Schools and Boomerang. <br />Young Warriors – It has been a slow summer, with only 4 referrals (2 from El Centro Hispano <br />and 2 from Carolina Outreach). Two youth have completed the required hours, but continue to <br />stay on with the program. FY 15-16 they projected to serve 16 youth (6 court referred) and met <br />that goal. They also met all their measureable objective goals. <br />DJJ Data –June: 6 distinct juveniles, 8 complaints, 3 approved for court, 8 put on plan or <br />contract, 3 school related offenses, 1 juvenile in detention for 1 day, and 1 juvenile on electronic <br />monitoring for 8 days. <br />July: 4 distinct juveniles, 4 complaints, 1 approved for court, 1 put on a plan or contract, 0 school <br />related offenses, 1 juvenile in detention for 8 days (same juvenile from June), and 1 juvenile on <br />electronic monitoring for 5 days (same juvenile from June). <br />Two juveniles were at Wrenn House in June and July for a total of 34 days. Wrenn House is <br />often used as an alternative to suspension. <br />Risk Level – (Refer to graph handout) In May 2015, the Sentencing and Policy Advisory <br />Commission did a recidivism study for North Carolina juveniles and they determined that the <br />previous version of the Risk Level Instrument was not providing a true reflection of those <br />juveniles who had a true risk for future offending. Too many youth were being classified as low- <br />risk and should not have been. The Dept. of Public Safety collaborated with the Commission to <br />study their own data and it was recommended that the risk assessment be re-normed to truly <br />reflect (based on the recidivism study) where the juveniles fit. The classification used to be low, <br />medium, or high, and now it is R1-R5 (with R1 being the lowest and R5 the highest). <br /> <br />Looking at the graph, the same youth were classified under both risk assessments. The previous <br />assessment had 67% classified as low-risk and under the re-normed assessment 21% of youth <br />were classified as R1-R2. The previous risk assessment used to only be given if there was a new <br />offense/charge, but the re-normed assessment is required to be administered every 90 days or if <br />there is a significant life event.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.