DATA
COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Juvenile delinquency
is not disproportionately high in Hawaii County in comparison to
other communities across the State or the Nation, but a number of
risk factors exist which are very likely precursors of delinquency
and which contribute to and reflect a variety of social ills. The
rural nature of the Island County, its high unemployment rate, and
a depressed County and State economy do not bode well for improvement
in the near future.
The Data Collection
and Analysis Workgroup collected data on all 19 risk factors, but
the quality of the data was inconsistent and in some cases the relationship
between the data and the risk factor was not clear. Nevertheless,
the workgroup felt confident that its process for narrowing the
risk factors to four priority factors was sound. That process involved
evaluating the quality of the data and its causal relationship to
each risk factor and assigning a score based on the assessment,
determining the likelihood of affecting the risk factor through
Comprehensive Strategies as low, medium, or high, and finally determining
in which risk factors the County most stood out from the State as
a whole.
Using the process
described above, the group came up with four priority risk factors:
availability of drugs, family management problems, family conflict,
favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior, and early initiation
of the problem behavior. The first factor is in the community domain,
the second and third in the family domain, and the fourth in the
individual/peer domain. No priority risk factor was identified in
the school domain. Extreme economic deprivation was a risk factor
that clearly distinguished the County from the State, as the County
has much higher percentages of its population on welfare, using
food stamps, receiving free or reduced cost lunches in the public
schools, living below poverty level, and unemployed. But both the
County and the State are already well aware of this and are working
to correct the problems, so it was felt that little could be added
by including this as a risk factor to be addressed by Comprehensive
Strategies.
The workgroup’s
recommendations were reported to a forum consisting of the other
workgroups as well as representatives of the community. A lengthy
discussion ensued and a vote taken. The forum agreed that availability
of drugs, family management, family conflict, and early initiation
of the problem behavior should be risk factors, but omitted favorable
attitudes toward the problem behavior.
It should be
noted that while the workgroup relied primarily on quantitative
data, the forum used both quantitative and qualitative data in its
decision-making process, relying heavily upon the experience and
expertise of those most involved in the juvenile justice system.
COMMUNITY DOMAIN
Availability
of Drugs
Availability
of drugs does not necessarily translate into use of drugs, but
the relationship is nevertheless clear: demand increases availability
and availability increases demand. Therefore, reducing one will
reduce the other. The primary data used to assess availability
of drugs comes from annual surveys conducted in Hawaii schools
by the State Department of Health Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division.
Over 27,000 private and public school students in grades 6, 8,
10, and 12 responded to the latest survey. Students were asked
a variety of questions involving risk factors in the same four
domains used for the Comprehensive Strategies analysis, including
perceived availability of drugs. Responses were screened for honesty,
and the results are considered reliable.
FAMILY DOMAIN
Family
Management Problems
Family management
problems reflect dysfunctional situations within families that
are frequently related to juvenile delinquency. Governmental involvement
in such problems, however, is generally limited to those situations
that involve Family Court, Child and Family Services, and the
welfare system.
Indicators
relating to family management problems include children living
outside the family, reported abuse and neglect cases, runaway
reports, and children living under foster care. These data were
taken from U.S. Census reports, the Department of Health report
described in the previous section, State Department of Human Services
reports, and Hawaii County Police Department statistics. All are
deemed reliable.
Family Conflict
Family conflict
is related to the management problems cited above, but is measured
differently and may result in different behaviors of juveniles.
The primary indicators of this risk factor are divorce, domestic
violence reports, and single parent households, which can be measured
through data from Census reports, Department of Health statistics,
and Hawaii County Police Department arrest figures. The extent
to which either a governmental or private entity may reduce family
conflict is quite limited, and almost always is dependent upon
someone in the family seeking help. Prevention is more likely
to be effective than intervention.
SCHOOL DOMAIN
Early
and Persistent Anti-Social Behavior
Early and
persistent anti-social behavior is a valid predictor of juvenile
delinquency. Such behavior is initially observed in the home and
later in the school, which is where it is usually first addressed
by a government agency. Unfortunately, three of the four indicators
listed in the Comprehensive Strategies Data Workbook – special
education emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, and behavior
disorders – are questionable as measures of anti-social behavior,
as they are more likely to reflect psychological or physiological
problems that are best treated by health practitioners than behavior
that should be dealt with by family court. The fourth, school
disciplinary problems, has more validity, but the variation on
how it is interpreted and punished varies considerably from school
to school. Since Hawaii County does not have a disproportionately
high suspension rate for students, most of the supporting data
is qualitative rather than quantitative.
LIMITATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Data
Data, especially
recent data, are not always available. Even though the 2000 census
was completed over one year ago, for example, few data are yet
available. Data collection is further complicated by the fact
that Hawaii does not devote enough resources to data collection,
analysis, and distribution. In addition, most, if not all, of
the State’s management information systems at use in the
criminal justice system are not suitable for data collection.
It is therefore not always possible to have recent data nor to
be able to compare counties using selected indicators. It would
be beneficial if risk indicator data were broken down by jurisdictions
within Hawaii County, so that needed resources could be directed
in the most efficient manner, but such is rarely the case. Finally,
not all data collected by the State and County are available on
web sites, making the collection of such data more difficult.
Indicators
Some of the
indicators suggested by the Comprehensive Strategies Data Workbook
are of questionable validity, and there is substantial overlap
of indicators between risk factors (drugs, for example, are indicators
in several risk factors). We are free, of course, to select alternative
indicators, which we have done in some cases. We also need to
recognize the value of qualitative data and provide for its use
in assessing risk factors. A judge’s twenty years of experience
in family court, for example, must carry weight in any discussion
of juvenile delinquency, even though that experience cannot be
quantified.
RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT
The Resource
Assessment Team (RAT) was responsible for collecting information
about existing prevention and graduated sanction programs that were
related to the four identified risk factors. The RAT used several
existing databases, which helped to identify known programs in the
community. In addition, published resource catalogs were used in
identifying the various resources in Hawaii County. Special thanks
to the Family Court of the Third Circuit, Casey Family Programs,
for sharing their resource lists with the team.
The team identified
114 programs or sanctions within the County of Hawaii which address
the four major risk factors identified and prioritized by the CS
planning group. The team then classified each of the programs according
to the priority risk factors.
The RAT then
placed the identified programs into an assessment matrix looking
at geographical coverage, financial accessibility, adequate amounts
of the specific program, the programs focus along the service continuum,
ages served, and if transportation was available. This process assisted
in the identification of gaps in service and program coverage. Due
to the discontinuity of the RAT through the CS planning process,
the assessment performed up to this point was not as comprehensive
as recommended by the CS Program. The RAT plans on continuing the
survey process and have it completed prior to the planned January
unveiling of the CS Plan.
Finally, using
the gaps identified through the resource assessment matrix, the
RAT also used first hand knowledge of the current service environment
in Hawaii County to make recommendations and identify the key issues
relating to the risk factors and the current system.
LEGISLATIVE POLICY & SYSTEMS ISSUES
The Legislative,
Policy, and Systems (LPS) Workgroup found that the vast majority
of issues identified by the various Workgroups, during the Comprehensive
Strategies data-gathering phase, related to processes or practices
that involve multiple agencies, departments, or organizations. Many
of these issues, which we defined as “systems concerns,”
arose out of the interactions between major State departments, such
as the Departments of Health, Human Services, Education, and the
Judiciary.
A review of
State enabling statutes, revealed that these Departments are charged
with broad authority and responsibility with respect to very specific
areas. However, children who are at-risk have needs that inherently
require a seamless continuum of services. An examination of the
areas of interface between Departments and others, as they strive
to serve the needs of individual children, sometimes revealed gaps,
uneven linkages, and inadequate coordination.
The LPS Workgroup
observed that much progress could be made in resolving systems issues
by clearly identifying the issue and convening key personnel to
formulate a resolution. Towards this end, we also suggest that laws
that describe the roles of the Office of Youth Services and the
Department of the Attorney General, with respect to an overall system
of services for youth at-risk, should be revisited.
Finally, to
promote the development and maintenance of an effective continuum
of services, means must be sought to measure the effectiveness of
individual programs as well as the effectiveness of the overall
system of programs. Without such tools, it is difficult to assess
whether scarce resources are being used to best serve the needs
of the most vulnerable youth.
Organization
of Report
The report is
comprised of three major parts. An introduction section describes
the Workgroup’s role in the Comprehensive Strategies initiative
and the process followed in arriving at the conclusions. Part two
lists the legislative, policy, and systems issues identified to
be priority issues and part three contains basic observations from
research performed by the group. Appendix A contains a listing of
all issues cited by the other workgroups and Appendix B contains
a partial listing of laws relating to Hawaii’s youth. Included
in Appendix B are copies of section 28-10.5, HRS, and chapter 352D,
HRS, which detail, respectively, the roles of the Office of the
Attorney General regarding juvenile justice coordination and the
Office of Youth Service regarding coordination of programs for youth
at-risk.
OBJECTIVE
DECISION MAKING
The role of
the Objective Decision Making (ODM) Group is to map the current
juvenile justice system to identify the critical decision points
and to document the current decision making processes (objective,
multi disciplinary teams, subjective recommendations, staff expertise,
etc.) used at each decision point. The Work Group identifies who
makes the decision/recommendation, what data is collected and how
the data is used with particular attention to duplication in data
collection, variations in definitions of terms, and time required
to complete each process. This is not an inventory of the programs
or options, but of the processes by which youth are placed or moved
through the system.
Objective decision-making
implies that the juvenile should move along the continuum of phases
from early intervention to intermediate sanctions to secure corrections.
Risk and Needs Assessments are used to determine appropriate placement
to ensure “the right program for the right youth at the right
time”. The sanctions increase as the severity of the offense
or numbers of offenses occur. Accountability and follow through
are a crucial part of the process.
The discussion
in the report section describes how youth enter the Hawaii County
Juvenile Justice System. The Child Welfare Services, Child and Adolescent
Mental Health Services and the Department of Education systems then
follow.
Priority
ODM Workgroup Recommendations
| 1. |
Determine
the feasibility of “receiving home” facilities in
East and West Hawaii where children may be placed at any time,
night or day and held for a period time. This service will alleviate
the police from holding youth in their custody and relieve them
from determining which agency has the lead role in placement
and services.
Personnel
from all agencies involved can access the youth, assess the
situation, have preliminary input and meet in a multi-disciplinary
team setting to establish roles and identify appropriate placement. |
| 2. |
An
integrated model of care is needed, It remains where youth who
are multi-agency involved such as a probationer having legal status
with Child Welfare Services and receiving high-end mental health
services from the Department of Health’s Family Guidance
Center may have several social workers involved who are driving
their own treatment plans. While parties participate in coordinated
service planning it is currently only for youth who are involved
with Felix and it is primarily mental health directed. |
| 3. |
Cross
training opportunities needs to be created. Discussions should
be held as to the possibilities of blended finding and ways to
streamline access to confidential information in order to better
serve children and their families. |
| 4. |
Need
for more resources. Youth need to be qualified as Felix class
to access therapeutic programs such as multi-systemic therapy
and teaching family homes. There is heavy reliance on mental health
services and a limited array of graduated sanctions for non-Felix
youth. There needs to be more opportunities for youth to earn
restitution and perform meaningful community service that has
a relation to the crime committed. The victim piece needs to be
strengthened by looking at current legislation relating to confidentiality
and liability laws. Sources of funds to support programs such
as forfeiture monies should be explored. Community and business
engagement through education and involvement needs to be worked
on. Access to substance abuse urinalysis and treatment and Juvenile
Sex Offender treatment are particular concerns. |
| 5. |
Runaways
and chronic school non-attendees are an under served population.
There is no agency that has the capacity to address the broad
scope of status offender services at this time. |
OUTREACH,
COMMUNICATION, & MEDIA
The Hawaii County
Outreach, Communication & Media Workgroup is comprised of representatives
from a variety of public and private sector organizations –
all of whom have a stake in communicating and networking effectively
the results of the Comprehensive Strategy planning process. Key
representation comes from the Office of the Mayor, Dept. of Education,
Dept. of Human Services, Hawaii Island United Way, Hawaii Police
Dept., Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce, Office of the Prosecuting
Attorney, Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Salvation Army, and Na Leo ‘O
Hawaii public access TV.
The first step
was to help formulate and embrace a vision Statement for the Comprehensive
Strategy group: “Every youth in Hawaii will be a responsible,
healthy and caring community member.” Everything that we say
and do during the planning and delivery processes will relate back
to fulfilling this vision.
Completed
Projects
- Facilitated
the development of a vision Statement for the overall group.
- Prepared
a monthly newsletter for all participants.
- Prepared
a “talking points” brochure for both internal and external
use. Production is pending.
- Taped
an interview on Na Leo public access TV featuring Jay Kimura,
who explained the Comprehensive Strategy process.
Work
in Progress
- The development and implementation of a logo and name contest for the group among youth in Hawaii County. It will be held in October.
- The selection of the best and most appropriate web0sites for obtaining information about the Comprehensive Strategy process.
- The development of a media plan.
YOUTH
INVOLVEMENT
The
mission of the Youth Involvement group is:
The
youth of Hawaii County will have a voice in all strategic planning
areas/groups; and all adults will listen to their voices.
The
Youth Involvement workgroup (consisting of 15 adults) invited youth
from all 18 public and private high schools on the island of Hawaii
to a forum on May 19, 2001. At this forum, 41 students discussed
the problems they face as youth of this County, the strengths of
their communities and their solutions to the seven factors they
voted on as being of greatest risk to themselves.
From
this forum came the two documents and eight major recommendations
included in the Community Assessment Report (CAR). The Compilation
of Results from the Halana Ka Mana’o Youth Summit and the 38
students’ Personal Reflections were further edited and clarified
at another youth meeting on August 20, 2001.
At
the August 20th meeting, the students refined their thoughts and
named themselves “Na Leo o Na Opio: The Voices of the Youth”
because they intend to be the voice of the young people of Hawaii
County. They are setting themselves up in every high school to carry
on the work of the Comprehensive Strategy Action Plan. They plan
to communicate via e-mail, newsletter, and the video conferencing
equipment the prosecutor’s office is installing in most public
high schools.
The students
will be planning their next summit in 2002. At this summit, they
will determine their projects and community work, based on the
Comprehensive Strategy plan that is adopted by the County of Hawaii
in January 2002. The adult workgroup will continue to work with
the youth to carry out the mission of youth involvement. The youth
wish to be part of a group that can advise the mayor on actions
that involve and help the youth of this County.
Youth Workgroup
Priority Recommendations:
| 1. |
Healing
and strengthening families. |
| 2. |
Continuing
to improve the school system to prepare youth for their future. |
| 3. |
Using
the county’s natural, cultural, and historical resources
to provide social and economic activities and opportunities for
youth. |
| 4. |
Promoting
high moral standards and alternatives to substance abuse and violence. |
| 5. |
Providing
facilities and infrastructures for social and economic activities
and opportunities for all of Hawai’i county. |
|
