Transcript Youthful Offender Block Grant: First Year Outcomes

The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG)
Program was established through
enactment of Senate Bill 81 in 2007.
 Under YOBG, non-serious, non-violent, nonsex offender juveniles are no longer eligible
for commitment to the Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ). Instead, counties receive
State funding to supervise and treat these
offenders.
 The original goals of SB 81 were to:

› reduce the size of DJJ
› save the state money
› keep non-violent offenders closer to home
 In
2009, YOBG underwent significant
changes as a result of SBX 4 13 (2009),
including:
› Annual county reporting of proposed
and actual expenditures.
› Annual county reporting of
performance outcomes on certain
youth.
› Annual Legislative report by CSA
summarizing county expenditures and
outcomes.
Although originally funded from the State General
Fund, under the Public Safety Realignment Act of
2011, YOBG is now funded with state sales tax.
 The annual amount is no longer specified in law;
however, it is still anticipated to be $93 million.
 YOBG is a formula grant that takes into
consideration each county’s juvenile population
and the number of juvenile felony dispositions.
 YOBG provides an incredibly flexible funding
stream, allowing almost any expenditure related to
juvenile justice.
 Unlike most state funding sources, YOBG does not
prohibit supplantation of funds.

The Youthful Offender Block Grant provides
financial support to counties while affording
maximum flexibility in what and how
services are delivered.
 Given that flexibility, counties have opted
to utilize a wide variety of programs,
placements and other approaches to
providing supervision and rehabilitation to
youthful offenders.
 During 2009-10, $86.6 million was spent.


YOBG funds supported 225 programs that
supported over 38,000 youth.
Capacity
Building/
Maintenance
Activities
3%
Direct Services
24%
Placements
73%
Community Based
Organizations
3%
Fixed Assets/
Equipment
1%
Administrative
Overhead
1%
Other Costs
3%
Professional
Services
8%
Services & Supplies
9%
Salaries & Benefits
75%
DOJ randomly selected 1,100 cases from the
Juvenile Court & Probation Statistical System
that met the following criteria:
 Felony adjudicated youth only, no
misdemeanants
 Adjudication dates during fiscal year 2008-09
(later modified to 9/1/07-6/30/09)
 The number of cases per county was
proportionate to YOBG allocation amounts
 Gender and ethnicity of the sample was
representative of the overall population
Of the 1,011 sample youth, 334 received YOBGfunded services, including:

Risk/Needs Assessment – 92% (vs. 80% for other
677 youth)

Development of Case Plan – 88% (vs. 74%)

Supervision in a Juvenile Hall – 74% (vs. 65%)

Intensive Probation Supervision – 61% (vs. 32%)

Alcohol & Drug Treatment – 57% (vs. 36%)

Aggression Replacement Therapy – 25% (vs. 7%)

Re-Entry/Aftercare – 25% (vs. 23%)
Of the 334 youth who received YOBG-funded
services, the outcomes below were reported for
the one-year period following date of disposition:

95% were enrolled in school during the year (vs.
90%)

12% graduated from high school or earned a GED
(vs. 8%)

20% were adjudicated in juvenile court for a new
felony (vs. 12%)

2% were convicted in adult court for a new felony
(vs. 6%)
Based on the data collected, it appears
the infusion of YOBG funds into county
juvenile justice has resulted in:

More services

More assessments

An opportunity for better outcomes