2.  The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Program was established through enactment of Senate Bill 81 in 2007.  Under YOBG, non-serious, non-violent, non- sex 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

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  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.

8. 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

9. Of the 1,011 sample youth, 334 received YOBG- funded 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%)

10. 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%)

11. 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