HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1984.11.29 - 17390Miscellaneous Resolution 84317 November 29, 1984
.aj
.?
44
BY: HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE-Marilynn E. Gosling, Chairperson
RE: PROBATE COURT-OAKLAND COUNTY CHILD CARE FUND BUDGET
FOR 1984-85
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of Act 280 of the Public Acts of 1975,
Oakland County is required to develop and submit a plan and budget for the
funding of foster care services to the Office of Children and Youth Services,
Department of Social Services, annually; and
WHEREAS, the Oakland County Probate Court - Juvenile Division and
the Oakland County Department of Social Services have developed the attached
foster care services budget for the State's Fiscal Year, October 1, 1984
through September 30, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Health & Human Resources Committee has reviewed this
budget and recommends its submission to the State Office.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners authorizes submission of the 1984-85 Oakland County Child Care
Fund Budget to the State Office of Children and Youth Services; Department
of Social Services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Oakland County
Board of Commissioners be and is hereby authorized to sign said budget.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Health & Human Resources Committee,
I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution.
HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Martty,n9(X. Gosling, CIMirpersq
I HEIá Y APPROVE THE FO'GOING RESOLUTION
. Ai ii /44ri r Z.L _71- JY
Da lei T. Mu • y, urity 7 ecuti i- Date
/ 1
•
29th day of November 1 3 84
ALLEN
#84317 November 29, 1984
Moved by Gosling supported by Moffitt the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Law, McConnell, McPherson, Moffitt, Moore, Nelson, Olsen, Page,
Perinoff, Pernick, Price, Rewold, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro, Doyon, Fortino,
Gosling, Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, Lanni. (23)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Misceilaneous
at their meeting held on November 29, 1984
with the orginial record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
County Clerk/Register of Deeds
this
- PROBATE JUDGES
NORMAN R. BARNARD
EUGENE ARTHUR MOORE
JOHN J. O'BRIEN
BARRY M GRANT
titut ut litlic1jt4an
I.
Probate (Erfurt
couutti of Oaklath
1200 N. TELEGRAPH POAD
PONTIAC, MICHIGAN A8053
JUVENILE DIVISION
31341584245
BARBARA A. CONSILIO
Cavrt Adminlatrator
Probate Fle‘ilsier I Juvenile Register
JOHN DOWSETT
Dirac-Mr
Juvenile Services
MEMORANDUM
TO: Commissioner Marilynn E. Gosling, Chairperson
Health and Human Resources Committeec .
, 2 ).
FROM: Mr. John E. Dowsett, Director -
Juvenile Services
RE: 1984-85 Child Care Fund Budget
DATE: November 8, •984
Enclosed are twelve (12) copies of the proposed joint Child Care Fund Budget
proposal for the 1984-85 State Fiscal Year. You will recall that this budget
is based upon our budget request. I would appreciate it if you would include
this budget on the agenda for hearing at the earliest Health and Human Resources
Committee meeting.
You will note that we have added a new component to the In-Home Care Program,
the "Repeat Offender Project". This component was mentioned in our budget
hearings though not included in our formal budget presentation. It is impor-
tant, however, that we include it in the Child Care Fund Plan and Budget so
that that process need not be repeated if and when we gain Full Board approval
for the project. I would anticipate that we will be approaching the Board with
regard to the project shortly after the first of the year. Back-up material on
the project is included in this packet.
Thank you for your assistance and should you have any questions, please call me.
JED/pm
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Barbara A. Consilio
Presiding Judge of Probate Court, Juvenile Division
Signed
County Director of Social Services
Date
Date
... . .. .._ .
1 Thu oorwtm.or or :ourial 7.Vic.,'. vial nut Lookup/bluing foirnq
any InOrvidual or group because of race. seK, (4lI9lOn. 4911. Ntikeirl* ,
ori91n, color. marital status, handicap, or political beliefs. ,
I
i'Vti i I 10 .il I , , 1..1 0 • t . ,01t11.4,. 0 .. IN ..f . $9/13,Ikt A.,,C.1 ,-kni.
r.. A CCIMPLE1 SON; Requlreo, , PENALTY: 5tate reinlOursement will I DU vvl thhe cl from local eu/ernment.
COUNTY CHILD CARE BUDGET SUMMARY
Michigan Department of Social Services
For the Office of Childien and Youth Services
PROGRAM PLAN AND BUDGET CONTACT PERSON
COunty Oakland COURT: Earl L. Koonce
Phone, 313 - 858-0256
Fiscal Year 1984-85
DSS: aP.a nn Wdtr
Phone: 213 - 858-1481
1.1.1•11=111
TYPE OF CARE ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURE/CREDIT
I. FAMILY FOSTER CARE 357 ql
II. INSTITUTIONAL CARE 7,976_3 187
III. IN-HOME CARE 3?0,452
IV. INDEPENDENT LIVING 0
V. FOSTER CARE DURING RELEASE APPEAL PERIOD 6,0j0
VI. STATE WARD CHARGEBACK 800,0_00
VII. BASIC GRANT 0
SUBTOTAL zi!..,1-6,21.5..54..
ANTICIPATED CREDITS APPLICABLE TO CHILD CARE
FUND EXPENDITURES (Subtract from Subtotal)
TOTAL COUNTY CHILD CARE
1,381,555
8,078,999
1.n•11•1n11
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATION
The undersigned have participated in developing the program budget presented above.
Signed
I certify that the budget submitted above represents an anticipated gross expenditure for the fiscal year
October 1,19 .hru September 30,19
Signed
Chairperson, Board of Commissioners Date
055-2091 (Rey. 4-84) Previous eciltlon obsolete.
TYPE OF CARE
I. FAMILY FOSTER CARE
A. Directly Supervised
Annual (total anticipated Anticipated
Gross Cost expense) Days Care
280 ,000
30,256
32 941
10,000
0
1,176
33 592
349
1 ,900
County Child Care: Budget Detail
Page 1
The Department of Social Services will not discriminate
against any Individual or group because of race, sox,
religion, age, national origin, color, marital status,
handicap, or political beliefs.
COUNTY CHILD CARE — DETAIL BUDGET
Michigan Department of Social Services
For the Office of Children and Youth Services
F.Y. October 1, 19 84 — September 30, 19 85
AUTHORITY: Act 87, Public Acts of
1978, As Amended,
COMPLETION: Required.
PENALTY: State reimbursement will
DC withheld from local government.
County Oakland
Date Submitted _November 8, 1984
1. Court Supervised
— Foster Care Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
2. County DSS Supervised
— Foster Care Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
B. Private Agency Family Foster Homes
1. Court Placed
— Foster Care and Administrative
Rate Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
2. County DSS Placed
— Foster Care and Administrative
Rate Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
3.419 314
3QQ
FAMILY FOSTER CARE TOTAL 357 ,_915
055-2092 (Roy, 444) Previous ecUtiori obSOlete.
TYPE OF CARE
Ir. INSTITUTIONAL CARE
A. Private Institution
Annual Gross Anticipated
Cost Days Care
1. Court Placed in State
— Foster Care Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
292,000 4 t000
0 0
0
0
0
297,014 4,125
County Oiild Care: Budget Detail
Faze' 2
2. Court Placed Out-of-State
— Foster Care Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
3. County DSS Placed In-State
— Foster Care Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
5 014 125
4. county DSS Placed Out-of-State
— Foster Care Payments
— Non-Scheduled Payments
Subtotal Private Institution
055-2092 (Rev. 4-64) Prav?ous editlan obsolete.
Annual Gross
Cost
(total anticipated
expense)
Number Anticipated
of Beds Days Care
Subtotal Court Operated
Institutions • 24? - 85;1. .679 173
i.1011PMIMM EM
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal County DSS Operated
Facilities 242
County Child Care: Budget Detail
Page 3
TYPE OF CARE
B. Court Operated Institutions
I. Detention 1.884,7 9,4 69 25,185
2. Group Care Facility 5, 247 .913 131 45,424 '
3. Shelter Care Facility 546.466 42 14,564
4. Other 0 .9 0
C. County DSS Operated Facilities
1. Group Care Facility
2. Shelter Care Facility
3. Other
INSTITUTIONAL CARE TOTAL 7,976,187
DS5-2092 ;Rev. 444) prsvichus •4:11tion obsolete.
153 021
167.431
48
TOTAL IN-HOME CARE
IV. INDEPENDENT LIVING
V. FOSTER CARE DURING RELEASE
APPEAL PERIOD
320,452
0
6,000
County Child Care: Budget Detail
Page 4
TYPE OF CARE
Anticipated
Annual Gross (total anticipated Number of Children Anticipated
Cost _sallgtLse in Care/Service Ilyjyare_
HI. IN-HOME CARE SERVICE COMPONENTS
S .0.A .R. "A"
R.O.P. "B"
- VI. STATE WARD CHARGEBACK 800,000
H. COUNTY BASIC GRANT 0
VIII. GRAND TOTAL I thru VII 9,460,554
IX. ANTICIPATED CREDITS
Telephone Reimbursement -Camp Oakland 3,601
Veterans Administration) 191,000
Social Security
Per Diem Receipts 160,000
Governmental Grants (Meal Reimburse- 127.000
Parent Pay ment) 473.868
State School Aid 426,086
TOTAL CREDITS 1,381,555
X. TOTAL COUNTY CHILD CARE
(subtract credits from Grand Total) 8,073,999
OSS-20g2 (Rey. 4-$4) Previous edition obsolete.
A)
B)
C)
0)
E)
F)
IN-HOME CARE SUMMARY
Michigan Department of Social Services
FOR THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES
County Oakl and
I. List atl service components which make up the II-IC program and specify the requested information for
each.
. CCF Other Public Gross
(Service Component) (Adm. unit) Expenditure Funding Expenditure
Status Offender Alternative
Resources - 4 None 5 i
Repeat Offender Project Juvenile Couri 167,431 None 167 431
IIMIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
111111.1111111111111
IIIIIIIIMILIIIIIIIIIIIII
Subtotal IHC - Court 320 452 11.11 i ,
Subtotal I HC , DSS 1111111111111
TOTALS IHC 304,429 None 304,429
For each service component listed above, complete a separate IN-HOME CARE BUDGET DETAIL,
(DSS-2094) filling in the appropriate budget items.
AUTHORITY: Act 87, Public Acts of 1978, as amended.
COMPLETION: Required
PENALTY: State reimbursement wit) b wtthhetd tram local
government.
NOTICE: Act 133 of 1982 (Papurwork Reduction) recitipos that
the State control duplicate information collection by state
agencies. if this form requests information that yuu nave alicia0Y
submitted to another agency, please send copies of the forms or
dePartment name anti !Wm numbers/Met to the Stale FornIS
AtimlniS5rat0r. Department or Management and Burnet. Box
30026, Lan$1n9, MI 43909.
Sen.:tiny Material dni' lint r*e.14, thAl you don't neeci to tomPlete
Olt form.
The Department of t-,,ocial SP.incv wilt not aiscrimiriate against
any inoivIclual In group her.aine of race, see, teliglOn, es,
national urlrjiii , color, rnarYtal status, handicap. Of pcIltical builefs.
OSS•2093 Rev. 5-14) prr,vious editi0.1 nosoietu.
IN-HOME CARE BUOGELDETAIL
Michigan Department of Social SerVkeS
FOR THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES
Service Component "A
A. PERSONNEL (Employees of Court or DSS) Adminstrative Unit: DSS Court 0
(name) (function) (#hrs,/wk.) (total cost)
1 - Child e1 fare Worker Sunervisor 40 34,176
Supervisor
3 - Child Welfare Worker I Casework 120 71,143
2. Fringe Benefits (specify)
38% of total salary cost 41,137 1 Total Personnel 146.456
B. PROGRAM SUPPORT (For Employees Identified in "A" above)
1. Travel (Personal Mileage
(purpose) (rate/mile)
See clients 125
Travel and Conference
2. Supplies and Materials Print shop
Membership, Dues and Publications
3. Other Postage
(specify) Building Space Cost Allocation
Con nience Copier
Tel hone Communication
Stationary stock ionary stock
t shop
(total cost)
2,100
75
100
300
110
80
2,466
269
1,065
(est. # miles)
8,400
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1. Individual Consultants or Providers
(name) I (rate/unit)
Total Program Support
(total units/contract)
6,565
(total cost)
None
2. Contrac_ing Organization
a. Closed-end contracts
(name)
None
I , 0 7 -2094 ( R. it . 5.841 Previous achtior. 3010te, Sea reverse sicalo( PA 133 InformatiOn
and non-discrimination staternent.
(source) (amount) (purpose)
b, Per unit contracts
(name) (rate/unit) (est, # purchased units) (total cost)
None
D.
Total Contractual
• •— anticipated average cost
(type of service) 4 units to be of each (total cost)
provided service unit
,
• Total Non-Scheduled None
E. Add Totals for A, B, C, & 0 above
Total Service
Component Cost 153,021
F. If you plan to fund any portion of this service component with other public revenue (including other
Child Care Funds or Basic Grant monies), specify the following:
None Total Public Revenue
G. Subtract Total Public Revenue from Total Service Component Cost
NET ANTICIPATED &IC MATCHABLE EXPENDITURE $ 153,021
AUTHORITY: At 87 PUIPlic ACAS of 1978, as amended.
COMPLETiON: Required
PENALTY1 State reimbursement will lae withheld from local
government.
NOTiOe: Act 133 of 1902 (Paperwork Reduction) ragVirei that
the Slate control duplicate iniorniation concoction ray State
agencies. if this form reQuests information tr at you have already
suismilted to another agency, please Send codies of the forms pj
dePartmcrit narne$ and form numbers/titles to the State Forms
Administrator, Department of Management and Budget, Box
30026, Lansing, Ml 48909.
SenclIng material ciOes not Mean WM you don't need tu complete
this form,
The Department of Social Services wiii not discorninath again5t
any individual or group DeCuuse Of race, sex, reirglon, age,
national or131n, color, marital StPt1.15, harumap, or doiiriew Dodos,
D55-2094 4Rev..:1434) lEsacui
1. Salary and Wages
(name) (total cost) (# hrs./wk.) (function)
40 2 - Doctoral Interns 14000 Casework
149 ,R21
nge Den
Interns
and uoctora
Total Personnel
(total cost)
7,380
500
80
1,700
400
1,65D
4,000
1,900
(est. # miles)
29,520
(total cost)
None
D55•2074 (f-tor. 5-ts4) P,uyluco.. ea.t.,on / Sr,s rusie+4-.11L0 tur i'n 133 Intorm3tIon
ar.ti c.9..1-alsulmiroliQn stm,einent.
IN-HOME CAkE BUDGET DETAIL
Michigan DepartmiLlt.of Social Services
FOR THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES
Service Component '"B"
A. PERSONNEL (Employees of Court or DSS) Administrative Unit: DSS 0 Court 0
3 - Child Welfare Workpr Casework 120 8381O
6 - Monitoring .-ff Casework 120 21,840
con ractua wit la • an. University
2. Fringe Benefits (specify)
36% of total salary cost (3 - Child Welfare Worker II) 30,171
B. PROGRAM SUPPORT (For Employees identified in "A" above)
1. Travel (Personal Mileage)
(purpose) (rate/mile)
See clients .25
2, Supplies and Materials Pos
Publ idoci aetions I
Telephone Communi cati on
3. Other Convenience Copier
(specify) Clielit Transportat(omiunit)
Rest tution/Moti vati on Funds
Buil ing Space Cost Allocation
17 ,61(1
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1. 1 ndlvidual Consultants or Providers
(name) I (rate/unit)
Total Program Support
(total units/contract)
Contra:7,ing Organization
a. Closed-end contracts
(name)
None
(total cost)
None
(source) (purpose)
. •
(rate/unit)
b. Per unit contracts
(name) (est. # purchased units)
D.
Total Contractual
.—.. — anticipated 3vera9e cost (type of service) # units to be of each (total cost)
provided service unit
_I-
I
Total Non-Scheduled None
E. Add Totals for A, B, C, & D above
Total Service
Component Cost 167,431
F. if you plan to fund any portion of this service component with other public revenue (including °the(
Child Care Funds or Basic Grant monies), specify the following:
Total Public Revenue
G. Subtract Total Public Revenue from Total Service Component Cost
NET ANTICIPATED 1FIC MATCHABLE EXPENDITURE
(amount)
None
167,431
AUTHORITY; Act 87 P•nzPlc Acts of 1978, as amended.
COMPLETION ,. Required
PENALTY: State relrnbUrSoment will be withheld from local
90wernrherlt.
NOTICE: Act 133 of 1902 (Paperwork Reduction) requires that
trie State control duplicate Intormation conection by State
agencies. If this form requests Intofmation that you hare already
5W:11iit-tea to another agency, please Send COpieS Of the forms str
department names and form hurnborSititleS 110 the State Forms
AC.rninIstrator, Department of Management and BuOget. Box
30026, LansInst, MI 4890g.
Sending rnaterlai does not mean that you don't heed to complete
this form,
The Department of Social Servicel willl not disitriminate asiainft
any Individual or grouo because of race, SOY. rellyion,
national Origin, cotor, maritat gains, handicap. or poiltIcal beliefs.
055-2094 (nev. 5-8c) Mack)
PROPOSALS FOR PROGRAMS NOT PREVIOUSLY FUNDED THROUGH IN-
HOME-CARE:
REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM
A. COMPONENT PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Children seen in Court who already have had two or three police
contacts by the age of 13 can be predicted to recidivate in 10096 of
the cases. This conclusion was drawn from two separate studies
conducted by the Oakland County Juvenile Court's Psychological
Clinic. An obvious question is what brings about delinquency at an
early age. In addition, we must ask what services does a Juvenile
Court need to offer to a population that we know will recidivate.
Current theory and practice in the Juvenile Justice System carries the
theme that "less is best". Age has a moderating effect on disposition.
The younger the offender, the less restrictive the disposition. This
basic attitude is reflected at all levels of our system. Police are more
likely to release an 11 year old with a warning than a 15 year old.
Intake Departments routinely divert the younger offender from formal
Court intervention. The approach of non-intervention appears
appropriate for many first time offenders. What approach is best
when the first time offender repeats this act and then repeats this
again?
With the strength of the research data from our Oakland County
Psychological Clinic, we must question our benign approach with the
repeating youthful offender. How many times have we released this
11 or 12 year old, or diverted them to a voluntary agency, or held the
matter under advisement at Intake? Many of these children end up
later in our institutions with a deeply ingrained, difficult to modify,
delinquent pattern. We believe that we must deal with the chronic
offender no matter what the age in a very decisive manner. Dr. John
Mrozak, Director of Centerpoint, Hathorne, Massachusetts,
emphasizes on page 44 of Delta Institute Book a publication of The
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, entitled "The
Kids Nobody Wants: Treating the Seriously Delinquent Youth 1982",
"the importance of beginning to treat young kids of about 13 rather
than waiting for them to prove to society how dangerous they are at
17 or 18".
Our position is that the youngster under 13 years of age who has
committed multiple offenses (although not necessarily adjudicated by
Court) is a high recidivism risk. (See clinic study attached.) This very
young offender presents a different diagnostic picture than the older
delinquent. There are dynamics particular that cause or support very
early acting out behavior.
To gi ie us a theoretical frame of reference, we hypothesize that two
factors work cumulatively to produce the climate for early
delinquency. First is the area of personal self worth. Youngsters in
this population experience little if any success in those spheres
generally open to children. They are non-performers in school; they
are not accepted by non-delinquent peer groups; they have not
participated in available enrichment programs -scouts, sports, church,
etc. -!cond. these vounzsters experience subnormal parenting. In the
form of lak of stimulation, lack of nurturing, inconsistent discipline.
Subnormal parenting emphasizes a youngster's sense of non-value, "I'm
different from other children".
To contieue the theoretical model, we contend that the presence of
one of the two factors might well lead to delinquency - but at a later
age. It is the existence of both that compel a youngster to act out
delinquently at an abnormally young age.
Our proposal devises a positive intervention package activated at a
much earlier age than is now typical. This intervention model must
hold the child accountable for the behavior. It must also provide
opportunities for the child to find acceptable means for successes. It
must provide parents a positive parenting model so they will resume
their role as an authority figure. Our intervention must also maintain
the statutory mandate for the "least restrictive" care; and also
minimize the negative effects of "labelling",
B. TARGET POPULATION DESCRIPTION:
The population to be served is the repeat delinquent offender. The
project will serve the youngster 13 years of age or younger who has a
minimum of two previous police or court contacts besides the offense
presently before the court. The child must be adjudicated on the case
before the court. We estimate that this unit will serve 80 - 125 cases
annually. Based on our studies 7496 of the cnildren would have been
removed from home during their involvement with the Juvenile Justice
System.
C. SERVICE MODEL DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe the services which will remedy or reduce the identified
problem.
Our approach dealing with the identified high risk repeat
offender is one of high intensity intervention. The child will
continue to reside at home. The program will employ a variety
of stategies to impact this offender. Services will be provided
for a maximum of one year. Caseload size will be a maximum of
one intensive caseworker to twenty children. This ratio will be
augmented with the intensive supervision staff reducing this
ratio to one to ten.
a. INTENSIVE CASEWORK:
Identif ied youth will continue under supervision for a minimum
of one year unless terminated due to established criteria. In the
initial phase, the project caseworker intensively supervises
youngsters on their load. Making at least two face to face
-2-
contacts a week, the caseworker will provide aggressive, parent-
like, feedback with the following focus:
I. Emphasize the seriousness of the delinquency.
2. Provide a consistency of expectation and supervision
not identified in the home environment.
3. Provide alternate solutions to daily living problems.
4. Eliminate the child's excuses and focus on
responsibility for individual behavior.
5. Provide positive feedback for desired behavior.
b. INTENSIVE SUPERVISION:
The conditions of community placement; that is curfew,
associates, school attendance, and specific work assignments will
virtually be monitored daily, on weekends and in the evenings.
Staff will be in place and will make spontaneous checks on these
children. A close working relationship with police, school
officials, and parents will be maintained to maximize the
control of the child's behavior. In essence, this program will
provide a "structured environment", but within the community at
large.
c. PARENT COUNSELLING:
The focus with parents will be to develop parent skills and build
a support system. This service will be a direct effort of the
project staff. The parents will be able to view and experience
the techniques utilized by the caseworker as a model for their
interaction with their child. Specific parent counselling may
also occur in the natural family environment or with a group of
parents of this identified population. The materials and
approaches in STEP (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting
by Dinkmeyer and McKay) will be used as a foundation for group
meetings. If it is determined that more intensive therapy is
necessary, these families will either be referred to a community
agency or seen by the clinician assigned to this unit.
d. RESTITUTION/YOUTH COMMUNITY SERVICE:
Special emphasis on the impact of delinquency on the victim will
be made. One phase of this will be topics of discussion between
the caseworker and the child, personalizing the offense and its
effect on the victim. Another phase will be paid work
assignments. These work assignments will be special household
tasks, but paid from a special program budget. This program
aspect is designed to repay the community and/or victim as well
-3-
as re-direct the youngster's role and responsibiltiy in his own
family,
e. SUPPORT/MOTIVATION:
At various times during the youngster's participation in the
project, group activities wilt be planned. These activities serve
two purposes. First, they are a reward of positive progress of a
youngster in the program. Second, they will offer the youngster
positive approaches for use of their free time and create interest
that can be carried over into their adult life. It is anticipated
that the youngsters can identify in these activities new ways to
have fun and ways to succeed in their adult life. Community
resources will be used to implement this strategy.
2. Describe the client selection.
a. Cases will be identified at the Intake Department level and
assigned to the repeat offender unit based on the criteria of age
13 and under and having at least two additional prior police or
court contacts.
b. Project caseworker will collect social history data,
Psychological assessment by unit clinician will also be
Completed.
c. Case will be staffed by caseworker, supervisor, and clinic person.
The focus is on assessing the needs of the family and identifying
specific structured tasks that the child and family must
acco.-nplish.
d. After adjudication but before disposition, if possible, the parents
and child will be informed that total family involvement is
required in this program (This might well include informal
interventions with siblings). They should also be informed that
the rationale for this program is based on the expectation
through research that unless a strong, in-home intervention
occurs it is highly likely their child will again act out and be
placed out of the home.
e. The final disposition is obviously determined by the Hearing
Officer. If placement in the unit is made, the child will be
placed on a Foster Care Order with a temporary release to
home. Program will use the temporary community placement
rules. These rules will be specific, setting expectations at home
and school, restitution and Community Service work, curfew,
associates the child is to avoid, and those structured activities
that would benefit child and family.
f. An interview will occur immediately after the disposition. An
overview of the program is given. This includes standards and
-4-
phases of supervision, role of the staff members, disciplinary
policies, and a review of the Order. The child and parents will
be given the temporary community placement rules. The
original (with a notation that the form was given to parent(s) and
child) will be placed in the file.
VIOLATION OF RULES/PROGRESS:
In the initial stages of the program the child's time is structured
by the program staff. Structuring of the child's time means set
study time, curfew, work details at home, and frequency of visits
by program staff. Lack of progress or regression will be handled
by increasing this structuring. A maximum structuring, short of
terminating the .child from the program and making him a full
Children's Village resident, would be brief stays in Children's
Village. As progress is made the structuring will be reduced.
The child will also be rewarded with positive group activities
scheduled at various times during program involvement. These
activities will be matched with the child's interests. Incentives
will also be established for parent participation. The dose
working relationship between parent and program will also
encourage parents by alleviating their feelings of no control.
The incentives, rewards, and increased monitoring will be
determined at periodic staff ings. These staff ings will continue
to involve the caseworker, supervisor, , monitor, and clinician.
The staf fings may also involve the parent and child so that all
parties are participating and feeling part of the outcome of
decisions.
3. State the method of delivery:
a. Services for the program will be provided directly by Court
staff.
b. INDIVIDUAL CARE PLAN:
A social history will be prepared for each case referred. The
social history will be supported by psychological evaluations
when appropriate. Initial case objectives will be developed based
on the social history.
c. MONITORING CASE GOAL AND OBJECTIVE ATTAINMENT:
This component will utilize case staffing to review case
movement and develop stategies. The staffing process will also
determine when a child will be terminated from the program
before one year.
g.
-5-
d. SUPERVISION:
Supervisor will be drawn from existing supervisory staff. This
individual will utilize the case staffing process as a key
supervisory technique.
4. State the goals and measurable objectives of the component.
a. PROGRAM OBJECTIVZS:
The research conducted through two birth years (see Addendum)
establishes the following conclusions. These conclusions
establish baseline data on the population to be served.
1. 2996 were placed out of home at the first adjudication.
2. 74% were placed outside the home during their length of
Juvenile Court involvement.
3. 32% were committed to the Department of Social Services.
4. The average number of adjudications after the initial
adjudication was 33.
5. 876 of the recidivism (re-adjudicated) occur within 12
months.
Based on this data, the program establishes the following
objectives for population served. Each objective is respective to
the five conclusions stated above.
1. The number of children that will be placed outside the
home at the first adjudication will be reduced from 29% to
0%.
2. The number of children served that will be placed outside
the home during the length of Juvenile Court involvement
will be reduced from 74% to 49.2%.
3. Tne number of children served that will be committed to
the Department of Social Services will be reduced from
3296 to 21%.
4. The average number of adjudications after the initial
adjudication will be reduced from 3.3 to 2.2%.
5. The number of cases that will be re -adjudicated
(recidivate) within 12 months of the initial placement in
the program will be reduced from 87% to 43.5%.
-6-
b. CASE OBJECTIVES:
1. To improve the parents' effectiveness in establishing
consistent limits.
2. To improve the parents nurturing skills.
3. To teach parents how to hold their child responsible for
their behavior.
4. To offer the child legitimate means for successes.
5. To hold the child accountable for his or her delinquent
behavior.
c. OTHER OBJECTIVES - EFFECTS OF PROGRAM ON JUVENILE
COURT SERVICES:
1. To provide the Court with another alternative to
institutional care.
2. To reduce the placement of children outside the home.
3. To avoid the combination of young delinquents with the
older, hard-core delinquents.
4. To assist in reducing population in Children's Village.
5. To evaluate the effectiveness of this program so as to
contribute a new tool to the Juvenile Justice System that
effectively impacts the repeat offender.
5. State the case record management techniques.
a. CASE RECORDS:
Since cases served in this unit will be adjudicated Juvenile Court
cases, the regularly maintained files will be the official files for
this program. Workers will be responsible to update the file at
no less than a two month interval. The file will contain
appropriate Court Order indicating placement within this unit.
Social history will identify specific objectives and specific tasks
that the family is to accomplish.
b. CASE REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Case staffing will be the primary supervision tool in monitoring
the development and thovement of these cases. A scheduled
staffing will be held with parents, child, supervisor, clinician,
caseworker and monitoring staff on a once every two month
-7-
basis. Other staff ings will occur as needed. It should also be
pointed out that the court file will retlect progress or lack of
progress as the conditions of temporary release are tightened or
relaxed. Further, these cases will be judicially reviewed at least
every six months as is normally a part of our process.
c. TE.'R MINATION FROM REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM:
Termination from the program will occur after one year on the
program unless because of continued delinquency the child is
returned to Court and removal from the home is ordered. When
a child is terminated before the end of one year, the decision
will be made as part of case staffing. A commission of another
delinquent act will not automatically terminate a child from the
program.
6. State the worker qualifications and duties.
Court staff will be responsible for the delivery of services in most
instances to these families. The following is an overview of the
persons to be involved in this unit.
A. SUPERVISOR:
I. QUALIFICATIONS:
The child welfare worker supervisor will be drawn from
existing child welfare worker supervisors (job
specifications attached).
2. SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES:
a. Log cases and assign to worker for processing through
Court.
b. Keep accurate records of those served.
c. Meet with members of the team in order to continue
to offer support and discuss stategies.
d. Meet with clinic person assigned to program and
caseworker to regularly staff cases.
e. Act as team leader and coordinate activities of team
to insure the caseload receives an optimum level of
treatment and surveillance. Insures compliance of
team member with intensive supervision practices
and procedures.
f. Coordinate the staffing process.
-8-
Identify and maintain necessary liaison rapport with
community agencies and groups in order to stimulate
their cooperation with this program.
h. Provide direct services when necessary.
i. Implement and evaluate process.
B. CLINICIAN:
I. QUALIFICATIONS:
The clinician psychologist will have a minimum of a
Master's Degree in psychology and will be a licensed
psychologist or a limited licensed psychologist.
SPECIFIC TASKS;
a. Complete psychological evaluation when appropriate.
b. Staff eases with supervisor and caseworker.
c. Determine with caseworker and supervisor the
appropriate agencies to be used when outside services
are required.
d. To establish appropriate tasks and expectations for
the cases served.
e. Assist in program evaluation.
f. Do therapy when appropriate.
Provide consultation and develop appropriate in-
service training programs.
C. CAS.WORKER:
I. QUALIFICATIONS;
Caseworker will be a child welfare worker (job
specifications attached).
2. sPeciFic TASKS:
a. Supervises up to a maximum of 20 youth who would
have been placed in Children's Village.
b. Identifies treatment needs and coordinates or
provides services to meet those needs through
individual and group counselling with referred youth
and their family members.
-9-
g.
c. Collects social history information and completes
report.
d. Makes home visits.
e. Handles all Court related duties, such as preparation
of Court reports, meetings with nudges to discuss
youths' adjustment and progession through the phases
of supervision.
f. Prepares case documentation consistent with
department policy.
g. Collects restitution and any other court ordered fees.
h. Monitors school and/or employment performance.
i. Provides informat ton on 'the program as needed for
its evaluation.
Assists in the smooth transition of cases from Repeat
Offender Unit to other dispositions.
D. MONITORING STAFF:
I. QUALIFICATIONS:
This person will oe in at least their second year standing of
academic studies in the human service area.
2. TASKS:
They will be assigned tasks under the guidelines of the
caseworker and have general responsibility for the
enforcement of the conditions of temporary release. More
specificially:
a. Monitors curfew, provides local law enforcement
agencies with a list of all probationers under this
program, completes police, school and/or
employment checks.
b. Provides 24 hour surveillance capability through day,
night, and weekend visits and telephone contacts.
c. Monitors and documents Community Service work.
d. Assists in completing dispositions and participates in
screening conferences.
e. Visits the home consistent with the offender's
progession through program phases.
I.
- I
4.
I. Maintains proper case documentation consistent with
department policy.
Assists the caseworker as directed.
7. EVALUATION
a. Effectiveness is defined as the actual outcome compared to
expected outcomes (program objectives). All five objectives will
be compared in this manner.
b. Efficiency is defined as whether the programs carried out
services as planned on the proposal. We will be examining
various questions on the delivery system.
1. Did the project serve as many target youths as
anticipated?
2. Did the staffing approach identify family needs and
develop strategy to meet these needs?
3. Were the frequency of contacts maintained as described by
the proposal? Were these contacts productive or did they
become routine?
4. Was the paraprofessional monitoring component able to
monitor the child and parents?
5. Was therapeutic intervention successful in helping parents
better nurture and control their youngsters?
6. Did youngsters substitute positive activities for those
deemed as undesirable?
7. How did the placement of children in Children's Village for
short periods of time impact the children?
g.
CLids
1 1/0718 4
-11-
DELINQUENCY RECIDIVISM
RESEARCH SUMMARY: 1983
Oakland County Juvenile Court
Psychological Clinic
Jack P. Haynes, Ph.D.
September, 1983
Contents
Page
Background of Recidivism Research at
Oakland County Juvenile Court 1
Parameters of the Research 2
Variables Identified By Scientific Research 4
Current Research Subjects 5
Distributed By Age 6
Recidivism Rate for Oakland County Juvenile
Court and How It Has Been Determined 7
Age As A Predictor of Recidivism 8
Other Variables Predicting Recidivism 10
Graphic Representation of Factor Interaction
Sur.,ary and Recomiendation 16
' Oakland County '
Juvenile Court Clinic
September, 1983
DELINQUENCY RECIDIVISM RESEARCH SUMMARY: 1983
BACKGROUND OF RECIDIVISM RESEARCH AT OAKLAND COUNTY JUVENILE
COURT
Three years ago, in 1980, the birth year 1960 was
selected by the Oakland County Juvenile Court Psychological
Clinic as the data base for studying the pattern of repeated
illegal behavior by adjudicated juvenile delinquents. The
specific definition of recidivism used in that study was
the same as in the current study, namely the proportion of
-cated youth with more than one official adjudication.
I te 1980 research, a total of 28 different variables
were studied and several variables were determined to be
most significant in predicting juvenile delinquent recidivism.
A flowchart was developed which delineated differential
risks to recidivism. The rate of recidivism for birthyear
.1960 was non-status delinquent males: 36%; females: 31%.
During the summer of 1982, files were made for all
youth born in 1963 who had been adjudicated with the Oakland
County Juvenile Court. Because of insufficient staff, the
research was not undertaken until the summer of 1983. At
that time, a university student was hired and worked approxi-
mately 400 hours obtaining data from Court files. This
student, Ms. April Eikenberry, did an excellent job of
collecting the data upon which this study is based.
'r
- 2 -
Special thanks are due to Mr. James MacFarland and Mr.
Ray Sharp of the Court for their suggestions in the
preparatory stages of this research. Their input which was
based on many years of experience was practical and useful.
Thanks also are due to Ms. Judy Law, my secretary. Her
assistance was a significant contribution to this work. Thanks
• are expressed to Dr. Rod Howard for his graphics.
PARAMETERS OF THE RESEARCH
What This Research Accomplishes
The current research project reported in this paper
accomplished several goals:
1. A (career) recidivism rate for the delinquent youth
of ?akind County was established. The advantage of this type
of recidivism rate is that the entire history of the youth
studied is known since they are adults at the time of the
actual study. This arrangement allows the study of the ebb
and flow of delinquent behavior and permits better understanding
of the pattern of delinquent behavior that is associated with
. recidivism.
2. This research used and evaluated demographic variables
which other research has shown to be significantly associated
. with recidivism. This research determined which specific
characteristics may predict recidivism among delinquent youth
in Oakland C3unty.
3. The current research has resulted in three organized
graphic representations of risk to recidivism of youth in
three broad categories: male non-status offenders, male
status offenders and female offenders (combined status and
non-status). :These flowcharts are included later in this
report.
4. The current research allowed for ready application
of the knowledge that has been established, application
primarily for use by caseworkers but of value to staff at
all levels.
What Is Not Accomplished
The current research does not establish a short-term,
for example annual rate of recidivism. The establishment of
such an annual rate would provide a specific measure of
eJrrent level of effectiveness of our efforts to reduce
eelinquency and delinquent recidivism. The current research
does not take into account ongoing variables which can only
be reliably and validly judged on an ongoing basis rather
than from historical records, variables such as degree of
family cohesiveness, drug usage and social class level.
Research to determine an annual rate of recidivism will
begin later this year but will not yield substantial written
results until late 1984. That research, when completed,
will identify "active case recidivists," namely those who have
additional adjudications while on probation or while in our
residential programs. That research also will identify
youth who are "closed case recidivists," namely youth who are
(
(
adjudicated after having been dismissed from the attention
of the Court.
VARIABLES IDENTIFIED BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
kvariety of research has been conducted over the past
40 years in other juvenile court systems and has been
published in the scientific literature. This research was
used in 1980 and again in 1983 to guide our thinking and
research on recidivism. The scientific research on recidivism
suggests that approximately eight categories of variables are
most closely linked with recidivism. The definition of
recidivism varies from researcher to researcher. The most
cE7ierally accepted definition is the one used in our research,
naely that recidivism is defiped as more than one official
adjJdication.
The most frequently identified variables in scientific
research on juvenile delinquent recidivism are:
1. Dysfunctional family functioning
• 2. Referral for antisocial behavior
3. Academic problems
4. Self-report of delinquency
5. Specific behavior problems such as daring behavior,
disruptive school behavior, aggression
6. Cri.linality of other family members
7. Socioeconomic status
8. Truancy
CURRENT RESEARCH SUBJECTS
The Court records of all males and females born in 1963
who ever were brought before the Court on delinquency charges
were studied. Some of those youth also had Consent Court
histories but those histories are only available in the cases
of those who had additional adjudications. Nearly all those
who only have had Consent Court adjudications have been destroyed.
The study size for the current research was 969 people.
The overall distribution by sex was as follows:
Males - 738 (76%)
Females - 231 (24%)
The specific distribution by sex is as follows:
Males: 223 - one official aJjudication*
36 - Consent Court adjudication plus one
official adjudication*
184 - multiple adjudications*
221 - files destroyed
51 - files not found
10 - jurisdiction transferred
10 - no adjudication
2 - Consent Court only but not destroyed
1 - other
738
*These figures are used to calculate the recidivism rate.
Females: 89 - one official adjudication*
5 - Consent Court adjudication plus one
official adjudication*
46 - multiple adjudications*
77 - files destroyed
9 - files not found
5 - no adjudication
231
*These figures are used to calculate the recidivism rate
DISTRIBUTION BY AGE
The following chart describes the distribution of study
participants by age at first adjudication:
Table One
Distribution By Age and Offense Category
'MALES FEMALES
Non-Status Status Total All
Age 12 or less 20 15 35 6
• Age 13 33 26 59 24
Age 14 52 34 86 . 42
Age 15 106 31 137 43
Age 16 116 10 126 25
TOTAL 327 116 443 140
*Since the number of females adjudicated for non-status offenses
is very small, all females were considered as one group.
The most common age for both male and females at the time
of their first adjudication is age 15. For males, the most
common age for non-status offenders is age 16, for status
offenders, age 14.
RECIDIVISM RATE FOR OAKLAND COUNTY JUVENILE COURT AND
HOW IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED
The definition of recidivism is the proportion of individuals
with more than one official adjudication in relation to all
adjudicated individuals. Ultimately what is most significant
to the Court is the category of actual adjudication rather than
charge since repeat adjudicated behavior is what we wish to
predict. The actual rate of recidivism is determined by dividing
trle n.imbers of youth in each group officially'adjudicated more
t'rar, one time by the total number of youth in that group. The
resulting-percentage is the rate of recidivism. Consent Court
adjudication is not considered an official adjudication.
Offenders have been categorized as "status" or "non-status' in
. reference to their first official adjudication.
Although the recidivism rate depends on many factors
which will be discussed later, the overall rates are as follows:
MALE RECIDIVISM RATE = 42%
Status Offenses: 35%
Non-status offenses: 45%
FEMALE RECIDIVISM RATE = 33%
COMBINED MALE & FEMALE RECIDIVISM RATE = 39%
AGE AS A PREDICTOR OF RECIDIVISM
The strongest predictor of recidivism was age. The rate
of recidivism,strongly varies with age at first adjudication.
For both sexes, as the age of first adjudication decreases,
the rate of recidivism dramatically and steadily increases.
Conversely, as the age of first adjudication increases, the
rate of recidivism dramatically decreases. This is graphically
described as below in Figures One and Two.
Figure One
Rate of Recidivism As a Function
Of Age at First Adjudication: Males
Rate
of
Recidivism
(Percent)
100,
90_
80
70
60
50_
40
30,
20
10
k..—.—.-.--nn•••n1.n•nnn1nnnn•fmrs
13 14 15 16
or less
Age
Females
i60%1
)
40%
( • Figure Two
Rate of Recidivism As a Function
Of Age at First Adjudication: Females
ate
)f
;ecidivism
Percent)
100
• 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
13 14 15 16
or less
Age
The rate of recidivism can also be considered simultaneously
with age and offense category. This is displayed in Table Two.
The decline in recidivism rate with age is clear for all
.categories, being most dramatic for status offenders.
Table Two
Recidivism Rate By Age
and Offense Category
Recidivism Rate
Age , MaleNag-dalWa tus
12 or younger 65% 81%
13 years 64% 62%
14. years 60% 62%
15 yc.)rs 38% 32%
16 years 15%
OTHER VARIABLES PREDICTING RECIDIVISM
Many variables were examined and screened for their
utility in predicting the rate of recidivism. Six variables
in addition to age turned out to be most highly associated with
recidivism. It is pointed out that these variables cannot be
said to cause recidivism but merely are highly statistically
associated with differing rates of recidivism. The six most
significant factors are:
*Number of police contacts prior to charge resulting
in first adjudication
*Mental health history (inpatient or outpatient
treatment of child or parents)
ehind one or more grades in school -
*Parental divorce or death
'Youth Assistance history
*Consent Court history
The salience of these factors varied in relation to each
other. For example, the importance of prior police contacts
was more significant in predicting behavior with younger rather
than with older non-status male delinquents. The factor of
degree of being behind in school was more salient with very
young non-status male offenders and with 16 year olds but was
not predictive at the level of 14 and 15 year olds.
The saliPnce of these factors also varied with sex and
with category of initial offense (status versus non-status).
-1 1-
The percentages of several predictors are presented below
in Table Three.
Table Three
Percentage of Predictors
By Offense Category
Male Non-Status Male Status Female
Parents Divorced/
Deceased 45% 52% 57%
Prior Contact With
Police Other Than
For Adjudication
Charge 63% 52% 58%
Behind In School
One or More Years 20% 30% 30%
Mental Health
History 17% 28% 28%
Assistance
History 30% 29% 33%
Consent Court
Adjudication 15% . 6% 5%
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF FACTOR INTERACTION
Three flowcharts are presented, Figures Three, Four and Five.
These charges represent the optimum predictive scheme selected
from hundreds of possible combinations of the factors. These
flowcharts are recommended levels of risk to recidivism based
on the interaction of factors. As stated earlier, the most
salient predictor variable is age at first adjudication and so
each flowchart is organized by age. Figures Three and Four are
-12
organized for males, depending on whether the initial
adjudication was for status or for non-status delinquent
behavior. Figure Five is a flowchart for females. The
operational definition of the risk levels is at the bottom
of each Figure.
(
A AA BA ' A BA
Parents
divorced/
deceased
Yes No
benina In
grade
placement
yes No
n•••••
I I
Behind in
grade placement
1
Yes No
BA
-13- '•
Figure Three
FLOWCHART FOR MALES, NON-STATUS
Age At First Adjudication
13 Years 14 Years 15 Years 16 Years
I 1
Two or more Any Consent
prior police prior police court history
contacts ' contact
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Recidivism Risk
Key
H: High Risk = 86 - 100% chance of recidivism
AA: Above Average Risk 66 - 85% chance of recidivism
A: Average = 36 - 65% chance of recidivism
BA: Below Average Risk ..--- 16 - 35% chance of recidivism
L: Low Risk = 0 - 15% chance of recidivism
High
15 Years /6 Years 13 Years
or Younger
Behind in
grade
olacmg.nt
Yes No
14 Years
Child or Parent
Mental Health
Yes No
Youth Assistance
History
Yes No
BA
-14- ,
Figurq Pogr-
FLOWCHART FOR MALES, STATUS
Age at First Adjudication
I I
A H A
Recidivism Risk
Key.
•H: High Risk = 86-100% chance of recidivism
.AA: Above Average Risk = 66 -85% chance of recidivism
A: Average Risk 36 - 65% chance of recidvism
BA: Below Average Risk = 16 - 35% chance of recidivism
L: Low Risk = 0 - 15% chance of recidivism
Any Prior
police
Yes
AA A BA BA
-15 7
Figure Five
FLOWCHART FOR FEMALES
Age At First Adjudication
13 Years 14 Years ;5 Years 16 Years
I Youth
Yes No
Behind in Parents divorced/
chooI deceased
Yes No Yes No
1
. I Prior police
contacts
1 I I T TYes No
n
-i-
A L
Risk to Recidivism
Key,
H: High Risk 86 - 100% chance of recidivism
AA: Above Average Risk = 66 - 85% chance of recidivism
A: Average Risk = 36 - 65% chance of recidivism
BA: Below Average Risk = 16 - 35% chance of recidivism
L: Low Risk = 0 - 15% chance of recidivism
-16-
SUMMARY AND RECOM M ENDATIONS
Seven primary factors were found associated with different
levels of juvenile delinquent recidivism. Age at first
adjudication was the single most powerful predictor of different
levels of recidivism. The second most powerful predictor was
the number of police contacts a youth had prior to the contact
associated with the first adjudication. Whether or not a
child was behind in school grade placement similarly was
strongly predictive of recidivism under some circumstances.
Other factors found to be significant included whether or not
there was a divorce or parental death, whether or not the
child or parents have had any inpatient or outpatient mental
health care and whether or not the child had Youth Assistance
or Ccnsent Court 1-istory. These factors interacted differently
depending on the age of the child as well as upon the category
of charge (status versus non-status).
1. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT EMPHASIS BE PLACED UPON
DEVELOPING SPECIFIC INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR THE YOUNG
'OFFENDER. The risk to recidivism is substantially higher
for all offense categories of delinquents younger than 15
years of age at the time of their first official adjudication
compared to youth age 15 and older.
2. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT INTERVENTION PROGRAMS EMPHASIZE
REMEDIAL ACADEMIC EFFORTS. Being behind one or more years
-17-
in school grade placement is significantly associated with
elevated delinquency rates for all offense categories of
delinquents. Organized emphasis may lower the recidivism rate.
3. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT PARTICULAR ATTENTION BE GIVEN
TO YOUTH-POLICE RELATIONSHIPS. The strong connection between
police contacts and repeat delinquency can be summarized as
"the best predictor of behavior is past similar behavior."
Closer contacts should be maintained with the police department
of a youth. Regular monitoring of the relationship between
the police and home probationers is recommended.
4. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT INTERVENTION AS A CONCEPT BE
UPH'61ZED BY THE COURT. The rate of male non-status delinquency
c:1 -5ec! between birth year 1960 and 1963 from 36% to 45%. This
difference is substantial-and is unlikely to represent random
fluctuations. An intervention orientation could be encouraged
by regular group brainstorming sessions, case conferences and
allied methods. The message should be clear to staff that
reduction of recidivism may occur via concerted effort.
' Reduction of recidivism is unlikely to occur if we continue
without change.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. McFarland
FROM: Dr. Haynes q
Coordinator: Research,
Training Clinical Services
RE: Young Recidivist Study
DATE: September 18, 1984
Enclosed is tho. Young Recidivist Study. You will find
that much of the data of what we know about recidivism
in young boys (age 13 or younger at initial adjudication)
supports many of the Repeat Offender Project structure
"j1
YOUNG RECIDIVIST STUDY
Jack P. Haynes, Ph.D.
Oalcland County Juvenilc Court
Psychological Clinic
September, 1984
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Purpose 2
Research Subjects 3
Age Distribution 3
Characteristics 3
Placement Status 6
State Department Committments 7
Conclusion 9
YOUNG RECIDIVIST STUDY
INTRODUCTION
This study is a further examination of data from the
Oakland County Juvenile Court Psychological Clinic study of
September, 1983: "Delinquency Recidivism Research Summary."
That research studied the adjudication and recidivism patterns
of all youth born in 1963 who came to the attention of the
Oakland County Juvenile Court when they were juveniles.
ecidivism as defined as more than one official adjudication.
Of thc5o youth studied, 443 males and.140 females were
adjudicated one or more times. The most common age for both
.ales and females at the time of first adjudication was age 15.
Of those adjudicated, 124 of the 583 (21.2%) Were first
adjudicated at age 13 years 11 months or younger.
One of the primary findings was that for both males and
females the rate of recidivism varied as a function of age
at first adjudication. The younger a youth was at the time
of first official adjudication, the more likely that youth
would become a recidivist. For example, for male youths first
adjudicated for non-status offenses at or before age 13 years
11 month, the recidivism rate was 65%. In comparison, for
youth adjudicated at age 15 ycar5, the recidivism rate was
found to bo 38;.. Overall, the male non-status offender
rccidivisr Tate was 4St.
- 2 -
Many variables were examined and screened for their
utility in predicting the rate of recidivism. Six variables
emerged as improving the prediction of the rate of recidivism.
If just one additional factor (two or more prior police contacts)
was added to male youth first adjudicated for non status
offenses at age 13 or younger, the recidivism rate for
those youth rose to 100%, namely a certainty of recidivism.
Even if that young boy did not have two or more prior police
contacts hut was one or more years behind in school grade
placement, the recidivism rate was approximately 90t; namely
near certain --y of recidivism. Therefore, the first study
concluded (I) early age of adjudication combined with (2)
two or more police contacts and/or (3) being behind in grade
placement were the key factors.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the present descriptive study was to learn
more about several aspects of the early recidivist offender.
Using all male youth born in 1903 officially adjudicated more
than one time, the study examined those initially adjudicated
at age 13 years 11 months or earlier. Because of small numbers,
females were not included in the study. The focus was upon
characteristics potentially pertinent in developing a program
aimed at reducing early recidivism. As stated above, some
factors were eliminated in the original study.
- 3•-
RESEARCH SUBJECTS
From the population of 738 males born in 1963 involved
with the Court, 443 were adjudicated more than one time. A
total of 94 were first adjudicated at age 13 or younger. Of
those 94, 53 were adjudicated for non-status offenses and 41
Were adjudicated for status offenses. The current study
examined non-status offenders. Records were able to be
obtained for a total number of 48 subjects of the 53 original
subjects (91%).
Aze Distribution
The breadown by age in years and months of the subjects
at first adjudication in the study was as follows:
Table One
Distribution By Age and Recidivism Status
RECIDIVISTS NON-RECIDIVISTS
9-0 to 9-11
I0-0 to 10-11 3 1
11-0 to 11-11 4
12-0 to 12-11 3 $
13-0 to 13-11 20 10
TOTALS —TY— —17—
The age distributionsfor recidivists and non-recidivists
were similar, namely approximately 64% of the recidivists
in the 9-0 to 13-11 group were age 13-0 to 13-11 and approximately
59% of the non-recidivists fell into the 13 year grouping.
Characteristics
The distribution of recidivists and non-recidivists were:
Recidivists 31
Non-Rocidivists 17
(58%) (42%) 31 TOTAL SUB,r
Of the 3.1 recidivists studied, the distribution was
as follows:
Number of Adjudications Number of Recidivists
2 13
3 9
4 7
2
-Tr- TOTAL
The median number of adjudications for these early
recidivists was 3 adjudications, the average being 2.9 adjudica-
tions.
Of the recidivists, the distribution according to whether
or not they were still under the jurisdiction of the Court when
they recidivated was as follows:
Table Two
Distribution By Court Status and Recidivism Status
Recidivated While Under Recidivated After
Court Jurisdiction Dismissal
18 13
Of the 18 recidivists who were adjudicated a second time
while under the jurisdiction of the Court, the distribution in
number of months after the initial adjudication was as follows:
Table Three
Distribution of Number of Months Before Second Adjudication
For Youth Under Court Jurisdiction
Months Before
Second Adjudication Number
1 1
2 1
3 2
4 2
5 1
6 1
7 1
8 2
9 0
10 1
11 2
12 1
18 1
26 1
The media:: (mid-most) duration was 7 months. In 897, of
the situations (16 of 18), the recidivism occurred during the
first 12 months.
Of those 13 who recidivated after dismissal, the
distribution of number of months between first adjudication
and dismissal was as follows:
Table Four
Distribution of Number of Months Between
First Adjudication and Dismissal
Months Number
2 1
4 1
5 4
6
7
8
11 1
20
-6
The median length of jurisdiction by the Court was 7
months for this group.
For the same youth, the distribution of number of months
after dismi-s.al and second adjudication was as follows:
Table Five
Number of Months Alter Dismissal and Second Adjudication
For Youth Re-adjudicated After Dismissal
Months Number
1 1
2 1
7 2
9 1
1 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
19 1
20 1
28 1
37 1
Combining the two groups (all were recidivists) a total of
19 of 31 (62%) recidivated within 12 months of their first
adjudication and 21 of 31 (68%) recidivated within 16 months
of the first adjudication. The 1.ey months, therefore, are the
first 12 months.
PJacement Status
The following describes the placement status of the
recidivists upon first adjudication.
•
Table Six
Placement Status Upon First Adjudication
By Number ity Adjudication Total
Status
Number of
Youth
Average #
Adjudications
Probation 22 3.0
C.V. Placement 4 2.8
Private Placement 5 2.8
The average number of adjudications did not vary depending
upon what the first adjudications entailed. It is also clear
from the data that the majority of early adjudicated male
r.=-status youth (67%) were not taken from the home upon
first adjudication. Taking the child from the community upon
first offense was not associated with sinificantly fewer
adjudications.
The average length of time for those youth placed out of
the home dra m atically varied. For these youth sent to Children's
Village programs, the average length of time out of the home
was 3.7 months. For the private placement group, the average
time was 6.2 months.
STATE DEPARTMENT COMMITTMENTS
Ten of the 31 young recidivist youth (32?,) eventually were
committed to the State Department. This figure is much higher
than is characteristic of the overall male non-status delinquent
population.
•
- -
Table Seven
Distribution of Adjudications for Young Non-Status
Male Recidivist Youth Committed to the State Department
Number of Adjudications Number of Youth
2 1
3 2
4 6
5 1
The average number of career adjudications for those
corlmitted to the State Department was 3.7 compared to the overall
group average of 2.9. The average number of adjudications was
28% higher.
These yoth were also younger at first adjudication than the
group as a whole, the age distribution fo-; initial adjudication
being:
Table Eight
Distribution of Age at First Adjudication For Young Male
Non-Status Recidivists Committed to the State Department
Age , Number of Youth
9 1
10 2
11 1
12
13 5
The average age for this group was 13 years 5 months.
• CONCLUSIONS -
This study further examined available data on male
non-status offenders adjudicated at age 13 years or younger.
The primary conclusions are:
(1) A majority of youth adjudicated at an early age
recidivate while still under initial Court
jurisdiction.
(2) Most recidivism by early offenders occurs within
the first 12 months following first adjudication,
whether they are under Court jurisdiction or not.
(3) Few early recidivists are placed out of the home
at first adjudication. This pattern appears
appropriate when other data are examined including
number of career adjudications.
(4) For youth placed out of the home initially and at an
early age, the average length of placement is between
approximately four and six months, depending upon
where they have been placed.
(5) A higher percentage of early recidivist youth are
committed to the State Department compared to the
overall male non-status Court population.
(6) The findings support the concept of an in-home
..)rogram of 12 months duration for early adjudicated
youth.
- 10 -
(7) It is.recommended that two recidivism rate's be
used to establish recidivism reduction goals.
(A) It is recommended the overall recidivism rate
of 65% for male non-status youth adjudicated at
age 13 or younger be used as a general benchmark.
(B) It is recommended that the recidivism rate of
100% be used as a second benchmark, taking into
account not only early first adjudication age
(13-11 or younger) but also the variable of two
or more police contacts prior to the allegations
bringing them toward that first adjudication.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. McFarland
FROM: Dr. Haynes 4
Coordinator: Research,
Training & Clinical Services
RE: Addendum to Young Recidivist Study
DATE: September 21, 1984
As an addendum to the Young Recidivist Study, please be
advised that 74% of the 31 youth in the study at one time
or another during their Juvenile Court careers were placed
cut of the ho.
aNiFORARY COMMUNITY PLACEME.NT
• RULES ex REGULATIONS,
Name: Cause No.:
Caseworker/Counset,or Assigned: Phone No.:
I, the above-named child, agree to obey the terms of temporary community placement, as indicated
below,
A. I will obey all of the laws of the United States, the State of Michigan, or any municipality.
B. I will obtain written permission from the Court before leaving the State of Michigan.
C. I will attend school every day, obey all of their rules and regulations and attempt, to the best of
my ability, to obtain an education, unless excused by the written consent of the Court. I
understand that no absence or tardiness is acceptable without a medical excuse or a good reason
from my parents.
D. I shall live at the address as designated in the Court Order.
• I will obey all reasonable directions of my parents, guardian, or probation officer, at all times:
I) I will keep my parents informed of my whereabouts at all times.
2) I will associate only with friends of whom my parents approve.
3) I will report to my court worker every
. Within 2 weeks I will locate an employer(s) who will permit me to work voluntarily 30 hours in a
10-week period and that this will be fulfilled per agreement with the caseworker.
• I will find paid employment and work cooperatively, effectively and, as scheduled, for the
employ er.
• I will make payments to as restitution, in the total
amount of and provide receipts to the caseworker by
I. I will no: leave home except for school and work unless accompanied by a parent.
:1 I wili when I get up each school day; also immediately after arrival home
from sehq.
• I will telephone and get approval before leaving home for non-school or work activity,
and will telephone again each time I want to go to another address.
L. I will attend and participate constructively in counseling as directed by Court staff.
I will obey the following special terms:
may revoke the temporary community placement if its full intent is
not honored, as reviewed by
I acknowledge that if the temporary community placement is revoked, , will be returned to
the prior building for brief periods or will become a full-time resident of the Children's Village at the
discretion of
(Child's Signature)
I, as parent or guardian of said child, will assist the Court in enforcing the above probationary rules. I
will assume responsibility for knowing where my child is at all times and, in the event that my child
violates any of the above rules, I will assume full responsibility of immediately notifying the probation
officer. in the event of my absence, I will guarantee that my child will have adequate supervision. I
will ensure that reliable and timely transportation is provided to permit my child to comply.
I understand that
Date:
Pare—W -
Coramur.ity 1,3 1;:cernnt Rules and Rftgulatinn
Form P717/Rev. S/S4 WPC Forms
,
OAKLA1:D COUNTY MICHIGAN
CLASS TITLE CHILD WELFARE WORKER suPERvIsoa
SECTION B: QUALIFICATIONS
EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS & ABILITIES
A. Required Minimum Qualifications
1. A Master's Degree from an accredited college or university with a major
in Social Work, Sociology or Psychology and have hdd at least two (2)
years of full-tine paid casework experience, within the last three (3)
years, one of -which was obtained as Child Welfare Worker II, or as a
State appointed County Juvenile Officer or Assistant County Juvenile
Officer with a County classification of Child Welfare Worker II in the
Oakland County Juvenile Court; OR
2. A Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with a
major in Social Work, Sociology, Psychology or related fields and have
ha Z at least three (3) years of full-time paid casework experience,
within the last four (4) years, two (2) years of which were obtained
es a Child Welfare Worker II or as a State appointed County Juvenile
Cfficer or A2sis:ant County Juvenile Officer with a County classification
Child Welfare Worker It in the Oakland County Juvenile Court;
3. ?aasess a valid Michigan motor vehicle operator's,or chauffeur's license;
4. s the com -.--e examination, including the pre-employment medical,
e:sblished f:: the class of Child Welfare Worker;
5. Successfully conplete the six month probationary period.
B. Addlticnal Des se Qualifications
1. Considerable knowledge of Juvenile Court policies, procedures and
legal requirements, child neglect and delinqueacy programs and social
casework pclicies and practices;
2. Considerable knowledge of Michigan Juvenile Codes, Supreme Court rules, and
other atatutes, ordinances, and case law pertaining to juveniles;
3. Considerable knowledge of and skill in investigating, interviewing and
counseling practices, procedures and techniques;
4. Considerable ability to prepare and present technical written and oral
reports to officials and other interested groups or individuals;
5. Considerlble ability to communicate under adverse conditions with
distressed people;
6. Considerabl.e ablity to cope with and/cr emet7,ency situations
requiring7LIE -c:iate decisions in accordance with departmental policies
and objectives;
APPROVED BY: cloluaA.,/g
J. B. Dunkel. Jr.
irector of Personnel
DATE:
Cnlid Wc11-z41....2 Wcirt
Page B2
7. Considerabie aiAlity to emercise mature judge,nent and initiative in
analyzing probletzs and recommending solutiom3;
8. Reasonable ability to interpret departmental program.:.; and procedures
to officials, comunity agencies, civic groups, and the general public;
9. Reasonable knowledge of supervisory policies and practices.
SPECIAL REUIR_Q=_:S
The employee of this class must maintain a valid Michigan motor vehicle
operator's or chauffeur's license.
Cl ASS TITLE CHILD WELFARE WORKER
_
Duekel, Jr.
Director of Personnel
// /7L
OAKLAND COUNIY MICHIGAN
SECTION Pi: QUALIFICATION;
EXPERIENCE, TRAININ:7., KNWLEDGES SKILLS & ABILITIES
A, Required Minim= Qualifications
1. A Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in Social
Work, Sociology, Corrections, or a closely related field;
2. Possess a valid Michigan motor vehicle operator's or chauffeur's license;
3. Pass the complete examination, including the pre-employment medical,
established for the class of Child Welfare Worker I;
4. Successfully complete the six month probationary period.
B. Additional Desirable Qualifications
1. Sone knowledge of and skill in investigating, interviewing and couaseling
practices, procedures and techniques;
2. Reasonable knowledge of social work practices, procedures and resources,
including ceork, group work and community organization methods;
3. Reasonable ability to prepare and present technical written and oral reports;
4. Reasonable ability to communicate under adverse conditions with distressed
people;
S. Reasonable ability to present programs and reports to .organized groups;
6. Reasonable ability to develop and maintain effective relationships with
people;
7. Reasonable ability to cope with difficult situations requiring Immediate
decisions in accordance with departmental policies and objectives;
8. Reasonable ability to interpret departmental programs and procedures to
officials, cozer,unity agencies, civic groups and the general public.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Must maintain a valid Xichigan motor vehicle operator's or chauffeur's license4
APPROVED BY
DATE:
. B. Dunkel, Jr.
t airector of Personnel
CW6 worcr
A2
Assists in the planning, organizing and coordinating of the efforts of
co -unity and civic groups participating in voluntary programs dvslgned
cc, develop services and resources for the prevention of juvenile dviinquency
and child neglect;
Participates in Juvenile Division's in-service training program;
Performs related duties as assigned.
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
Employees in this class who consistently demonstrate an ability to complete
journeyman level assignments may be promoted to Child Welfare Worker II provided
the minimum requirements of the class are met,
APPROVED BY:
4.
DATE:
Oakland County
Probate Court - Juvenile Division
and
Department of Social Services
Child Care Fund Plan and Budget
Oakland County Status Offender Program
1984/1985
General Narrative
In-Home Care and Basic Grant Narrative
Addendum I
Addendum II
Proposed Program not Previously Funded
Page 1
Page 2
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
•
•
GENERAL NARRATIVE & RELATED IN-HOME CARE PROGRAM EVALUATIONS & PROPOSALS
A. Reference 13 made to last year's (1983/1984) General Narrative A(1)
thru E. Oakland County Juvenile Court and Status Offender Program,
S.O.A.R, component response to these questions remains essentially
the same and is unchanged for (1984/1985). Please refer to 3 and C
below for outline discussions of current program evaluation and new
program component proposals.
B. Current program evaluation (related statistics and data) for 1983
will be reflected in VII; A 1 6 2. In addition, projections and
proposals for 1984/1985 will be based on additional data and
statistics from January, 1984 thru June, 1984.
Addendums I and II chart total detention days for 1983 for Status
Offender Program youth as compared to past reporting years and
baseline data accumulated in 1975 (the last year before the then
"new" Status Offender Program 1978) began to impact dramatically
the detention of status offenders in Oakland County and at the
Oakland County Children's Village, residential detention, treatment
and shelter care facilities and programs.
C. Further and in accordance with 1111, E, a separate narrative will be
submitted for program proposals for 1984/1985 not previously funded
through in-Home Care Child Care Funds. These new and additional
proposed service components will be outlined as shown in Section
VII-B through 0; component problem statement, target population
description and service model description. Last year's authorized
components and services provided remain the same (see change
proposal in paragraph VII; Z and the above proposals represent
additional, modified and increased service components. Appropriate
budget detail will be submitted in relation to the
services/positions outlined in the narrative.
VII IN-HOME CARE - STATUS OFFENDER PROGRAM EVALUATION NARRATIVE
A. Service components as authorized and described and discussed ir
detail in last year's plan in Sections VII-B thru VIII-C will rot
be described again in this year's plan. The current program
continues to provide identical services to those discussed above in
1983. New proposals/program plans, however, will be discussed in
Section VII-B thru D. On-going program evaluation is presented as
follows in VII; A 1 & 2. A - 3 reflects case characteristics from
1983.
1. The following narrative and related addendums 1 and II
evaluate the impact of Status Offender Program services on the
problems addressed by the service component for the year 1983.
a. Oakland County Juvenile Court has made a concerted effort
to reduce the number of status offenders detained in our
faciliaties and processed through the court system.
Since 1978, with a federal grant, a special program was
initiated to serve and impact the prior to adjudication
status offender who was a high risk for removal from
home, primarily the home truant, services to avoid
detention have been measured by monitoring the total
number of detentions prior to adjudication since baseline
year, 1975. Addendums 1 and II show graphically the
success of these efforts and services.
(1) The stated past objective has been to maintain a
level prior to adjudication no greater than 25% of
1975 or 125 actual detentions annually. For 1983
the graph in addendum 1 translates into 113 actual
detentions of all status offenders and thereby
exceeds this goal.
(2) A second objective was to reduce the length of
detention for the population served by 40% from the
length of detention was established from actual
prior to adjudication detentions in 1975. Based on
the data, the actual days in detention were 589
compared to expected days of 1,013 and represents a
58% reduction and exceeds the objective. Please
refer to addendum 11 and expected versus actual days
of detention for i983.
(3) The final objective was to avoid out-of-home
placement in at least half the status offenders
referred to this program as an alternative court
disposition to out-of-home placement. For 1983, 15
intensive cases were served and 10 were closed;
three were admitted to CV facilities, one truarted
and was dismissed at 17 and six were eitaer
dismissed or remain on home probation. 6etweer
January 17 and July 1, five more cases were closed
with one returned to facilities for a delinquent act
while one continues on home probation an three were
dismissed to home.
As of July 1 there are only two (2) active cases in
the intensive/disposition program and court
worker/court disposition referrals are very minimal.
During February to April, three (3) referrals were
r.arned down as not being appropriate for the
program. The objective/goal to avoid out-of-home
placement in half of these cases, however, was well
realized for 1583. Please refer to paragraph 2
below for further evaluation, discussion and needed
changes.
(4) Addendum 11 shows the reduction in expected days in
detention was 424. An average length of stay in a
Children's Village residential treatment program for
1983 was 4.6 months or 138 days. Of the 15
youngsters served in the intensive/dispositional
program the estimate is that with a success rate
(avoiding detention) of 70% or 10 youngsters,
another 925 days were saved of out-of-home care or a
total of 1,346 days for 1983. For the first two
quarters of 1984, however, 95% of our program
services have been crisis intervention and short
term 30 to 60 day casework, referral, placement and
counseling services.
2, During 1983 case characteristics were accumulated at case
closure. Through oversight, data was not collected for cases
closed in January, 1984.
a, Females represented 71% of the cases; males 29%; b.
average age for males served was 15.1 with the youngest
served 12; average age for females was 15.5 with tne
youngest served 12; c. parental marital status of all
cases served; 20% intact marriage, both natural parents;
62% of the natural parents were divorced (single parent
or stepparent custody arrangement), 8% one or both
parents deceased; 5% no legal father; 5% adoptive cases;
d. 80% of all cases served had at least one prior
agency, school or community/police contact prior to
involvement with the Status Offender Program; e. 20% had
some prior court contacts but only 10% were previously
adjudicated; f. average school grade 9.3; WRAT results
2.5 to three grades underachieved.
4
in review and summary, the typical youngster served in
this program is in 9th grade at 15+ ydars with very
little prior official involvement with Juvenile Court (l
out of 10 cases). The most significant factor is a
breakdown in the youngster's basic family unit througn
divorce, separation, non-marrying parents and single
parent or stepparent homes. Close and trusting personal
relationships with parents/adults have been very
difficult if not impossible with an accompanying
accumulation of "street values" and "survival skills".
Peer groups art usually older and marginally delir.quent
with the young ladies seen almost always having much
older boyfriends, 17 to 23. Success in school is very
minimal with a lot of truancy, C to E grade averages, no
extracurricular involvement and little or no pre-voc or
vocational involvement or experience. Alcohol and/or
drug use runs around 80 to 90% at user frequency rates
from light to heavy.
AltornatIva to Sacure
Detcntton t& mpldmonted
t
30
20
10
00
Co
70
50
30 't•
ok
0
1st lst 1 s t 151; 1st 1 n t 1st
' 1578 1979 NBO 1981 . 092 !qt:5 1976 1977 1.W.5
so
• MADJUDICATED AC 3SNNS TO ,:HiLDRUI'S ViLUC.E ,
OF STATUS OFFENDERS V QUARTER
(ALL STA -NS ocFer,An=Q5)
\
ti3
I_
1 S t !St
4 o r •
ADDEi '
Expected vs Actual Days of Detention for 1583
The expected days in detention was established from the actual pre-adjudicated
detention of status offenders in 1975. The days in detention were categorized by
the length of the detention from one to thirty days. Any detention beyond 30 days
was placed in the "30 Day" category because lengthier detentions usually included
children waiting placement after adjudication.
To establish the expected number of children for each category, the number of
children in each category was divided by the total number of pre-adjudicated
detentions (418) in 1375. Therefore, 48 children were detained for one day, divided
by 418 equals the rate of detention for this category at 11.4%. For 1983 program
year, the 11.4% was multiplied by the total number of children served, 128. The
expected number of children for one day would be 15.
The following table describes the expected days in detention compared to the actual
days. The actual days was accumulated at the closure of our cases.
Length of Percentage No. of Children Expected Actual No. Actual
Days In of Population Expected Based on Days In of Children Days In
Detention as- Category Pop. of 128 Served Detention in Detention Detention
1 11.4 15 15 18 18
2 15.0 15 38 11 22
3 8.1 10 30 8 24
4 8.5 11 44 2 8
5 9.8 13 65 3 15
6 8.6 11 66 2 12
7 8.8 12 84 0 0
8 2.1 3 24 0 0
9 2.4 3 27 0 0
10 .7 1 JO 0 0
11 .7 1 11 1 11
12 1.2 2 24 1 11
13 .5 0 0 1 13
2 28 1 14 1
15 i,7 2 30 0 0
16 1.9 2 32 1 16
17 2.4 3 51 1 17
18 2.1 3 54 1 18
13 1,2 1 19 1 19
20 .2 0 o 1 20
2.1 3 63 1 21
22 .9 1 22 0 0
23 1.2 2 46 0 0
24 .7 1 24 0 0
25 .2 0 0 0 0
26 .5 0 0 1 26
27 .7 1 27 0 0
28 .2 0 0 0 0
25
.., 0 0 0 0
30 + 4.5 6 180 + 10 300 +
100% ffg 1,013
From the 128 children served, 63 children were not detained and are not included in the
column, "Actual Number of Children in Detention".