|
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT REPORTS Data Collection and Analysis Workgroup REPRESENTATION F ields represented by membership in this group included: juvenile justice professionals, educators, corrections officers, job services coordinators, and mental health professionals.FUNCTION T he data collection and analysis workgroup had three primary tasks: (1) developing a statistical and demographic data profile of the community, (2) conducting an analysis of data sources and accessibility, and (3) analyzing the data to identify priority risk factors and key issues to be addressed by other work groups. These steps were taken prior to the community meeting in January, 2000, at which the larger community group did the actual prioritization of risk factors.PROCESS I n collecting data for the initial phase of developing a community profile, the members found that in some cases data collection was difficult. Data has not been consistently measured, making comparisons difficult or cumbersome.The Data Collection and Analysis group gathered a large selection of statistical information from a variety of sources. These data were then thoroughly reviewed, with each member utilizing their personal and professional abilities and expertise. Comparisons were made across dates, counties, sources, and within the state. Data that appeared to be most consistent were then selected. For more intensive analysis, the workgroup later reviewed the compiled data in two separate comprehensive meetings. In the process, the workgroup examined the principles, as well as the key questions of comparing numbers, looking at trends, determining developmental periods, and identifying clusters where all or most data indicators in one grouping showed a problem. They weighed not only what was good or bad, but what is changing, and in what areas. After carefully considering the statistics using their own experiences as professionals and their individual and collective knowledge, they were able to see a relatively clear picture of the most pressing factors. In an effort to streamline the prioritization process of the community group, and after thorough examination and analysis, the data collection group chose six risk factors to present as priority areas at the January meeting. In addition, the reasons for choosing and not choosing particular risk factors were given. Following the data presentation, every person in attendance at that meeting voted for their choice of the top five priority risk factors. This report gives a full accounting of the data previewed by the data collection group during their meetings, the rationale for choices made, information presented during community meetings, and the final outcomes from both the workgroup and the community decision-making process. RISK FACTORS The "Risk Factors and Data Indicators" Comparison chart (see Appendix 2) lists each of those risk factors that had enough significant data to be considered. These risk factors were used because their numbers were notably high {or low} enough in comparison to the state average, or because when viewed with other indicators or risk factors they became significant as a result of obvious connections, or because of their trends. For instance, the "Average Daily Non-Attendance Rate for Grades K-8" is below the state average, and Baker’s high school dropout rate by itself does not seem significant when compared to that of other counties. However, the dropout rate has increased significantly, school failure is up slightly, and readiness to learn is down. Every member of the Data Collection workgroup had at some point worked with juveniles in some capacity. In their informal scoring process, it was agreed that either Family Management Problems or Family Conflict was relevant somewhere within the big picture. Also relevant were the risk factors of Availability of Drugs and Alcohol, Community Laws and Norms, Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation, and Early and Persistent Anti-Social Behavior. This is not to say that the other risk factors are not important. Each is important in arriving at a healthy community. However, the question was which were most important. Among some risk factors, the data is such that the committee concluded a need for future revisitation. Those are incarceration of adults, school dropout, and academic failure. Currently, juvenile arrests are not being tracked for outcomes or sanctions such as adjudication, probation, and community service. The group recommends that in the future, as technology allows, arrests be tracked in order to ascertain how many juvenile arrests are extended to probation, adjudication, and community service. This will account for arrest rates and outcomes, and give the juvenile department more information to judge the severity of those statistics. In the area of juvenile case dispositions, the data collection group also suggests that future evaluations consider demographics of juveniles being sanctioned, such as age, gender and type of crime. Because the numbers of juvenile arrests in this community are so high, the area of "Early and Persistent Behavior" was a natural choice as a priority. It was suggested that one strategy focus on consequences for both criminal and non-criminal behavior that leads to arrest. In the factor of "Neighborhood Attachment," it was suggested that strategies could involve local faith communities who already participate in social service work. With that intent, all faith organizations in the county received an invitation to public forums, and each received a survey from the Resource Assessment workgroup.
Although the risk factor of "Parental Attitudes" did have some areas that were higher than the state, it was decided that this was not as serious a contributing factor. Majority opinion was that the presence of three treatment facilities could have had an affect on the statistics for "Alcohol Use During Pregnancy." While "Adult Property Crime Arrests" was high, it was not in and of itself enough to make this factor a priority at this time, since it is possible that specific incidents could have weighted the statistics for that year. While the domain of "Peers" is important, the numbers and the clustering did not seem to have enough of an impact, especially when comparing Baker County numbers to the state average, to place these factors in a priority position. Studies show that "Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation" is an area that greatly influences drug and alcohol use, crime, and the family. Naturally, the Community Planning Team supports any effort to improve the overall economic picture for Baker County. The areas of the "School" domain not included were "Academic Failure and Lack of Commitment to School." These numbers were either below the state average or close enough to the state average to be of minimal impact, as was also the case in the risk factor "Low Neighborhood Attachment." Last, the factor of "Family History of High Risk Behavior" was not included in the priority area. Again, the number of treatment facilities in Baker City were considered a potential weight for the number of adults in alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) programs, and the family history of ATOD was only slightly over the state number. Readiness to learn will likely come with improved family management and reduced family conflict.
RATIONALE FOR PRIORITIZING RISK FACTORS: Prioritized risk factor: Early and Persistent Anti-Social Behavior Key indicators:. Peer-individual anti-social behavior, Juvenile arrests for behavioral crimes, Crimes against persons, Crimes against property. Children who are aggressive in grades K-3 are at higher risk for substance abuse. When a child’s aggressive behavior in the early grades is combined with isolation or withdrawal, there is an even greater risk of problems. This risk factor also includes persistent antisocial behavior in early adolescence, like misbehaving in school, skipping school, and getting into fights with other children. Young people, both girls and boys, who engage in these behaviors during early adolescence, are at increased risk for drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, violence, school dropout, and teen pregnancy. Rationale for prioritizing risk factor: Early aggressive or negative behavior is a sign of future negative, illegal, and/or dangerous behaviors. Addressing these behaviors when they begin - and when they are behavioral crimes (i.e. truancy) instead of criminal offenses (i.e. assault) - instead of waiting until the child is in or near adulthood will have positive effects. Future problems may be prevented, both in that person, and in those with whom that person interacts (such as siblings and/or their own children). Addressing the issues before the activities become serious, chronic, or violent will also reduce the many stresses placed on social systems that focus on or respond to negative behavior by reducing the recidivism rate of juvenile delinquency. The numbers in this risk factor category are almost without exception exceedingly high when compared to the rest of the state. While the trend shows that the overall arrest rate for juveniles is down, the rate is still high enough to be of concern. This risk factor is predictive of all five problem behaviors in the Comprehensive Strategy framework. In order to build effective prevention strategies and programs, it is important that at-risk behavior be acknowledged when it begins to show a pattern at a young age.
Prioritized risk factor: Availability of Drugs and Alcohol Key indicators: Perceived availability of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and Availability of alcohol and tobacco. The more available drugs are in a community, the higher the risk that young people will abuse drugs. Perceived availability of drugs is also associated with risk. Even when children "just think" that drugs are available, a higher rate of drug use is often observed. Rationale for prioritizing risk factor: Drug and alcohol use is present alongside many of the other risk factors. The educators, counselors, and corrections members have had a depth of experience in working with individuals who were involved with drugs and alcohol. Commonly, drug and alcohol usage is present among juvenile delinquents and adult criminals.
Additionally, the numbers were slightly above the state figures, with a significant trend toward continued increase. The illicit use of drugs and alcohol is also an issue that arises in several other data indicators. This risk factor was noticeably high in comparison, showed significant trends, had a developmental period around age 13, and had a recognizable cluster with other risk factors.
Prioritized risk factor: Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation Key indicators: Average per capita income, Unemployment, Food stamp recipients, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children were all indicators. Children who live in deteriorating and crime-ridden neighborhoods characterized by extreme poverty are more likely to develop problems with delinquency, teen pregnancy, school dropout, and violence. Children who live in these areas – and have behavior and adjustment problems early in life – are also more likely to have problems with drugs later on. Rationale for prioritizing risk factor: While economic and social deprivation are not the cause of violence or drug and/or alcohol use, they can bring on a large degree of hopelessness, from which crime, ATOD usage, and violence could arise or worsen. Extreme economic deprivation, including poor living conditions, high unemployment, and extreme poverty, is a predictor of all five problem behaviors in children (see Appendix 3). Children living in deteriorating neighborhoods, and who also have behavioral problems early in life, are more likely to exhibit problems with drug abuse later in life. Each of the indicators in this category are considerably different in comparison with the state numbers. While the trends seem to be showing some improvement, there is still quite a large expanse between Baker County’s situation and those of the state average. Poverty or extremely low incomes can have a negative impact on children from before birth through adulthood. This risk factor can easily be clustered with a number of other risk factors. Prioritized risk factor: Family Management Problems and Family Conflict Key indicators: Family Management Problems indicators include Child abuse and neglect, Poor family management, and Average daily non-attendance. Family conflict indicators include High family conflict, Divorce, and Domestic violence arrests. Poor family management problems include lack of clear expectations for behavior, failure of parents to monitor their children (knowing where they are and who they’re with), and excessively severe or inconsistent punishment. Such practices place children at higher risk for alcohol and other drug use. Persistent serious conflict between primary caregivers or between caregivers and children appears to increase overall risk for children raised in these families. Conflict between family members appears to be more important than the family structure. Regardless of family structure, children raised in families high in conflict are at risk for all problem behaviors. Rationale for prioritizing risk factor: The two risk factors of Family Management Problems and Family Conflict are intricately connected, which made combining the two a sensible step in the process. Children who live in violent homes are less likely to stay at home, have a lowered school success rate, and are less likely to be supervised by a parent. They are also more likely to turn to violence, drugs, and alcohol, and to become chronic, serious, violent offenders. Additionally, they are at an increased risk of being physically abused themselves (a 1500 percent greater chance according to the 1993 Oregon SCF Cohort Study). A study of violent inmates in California’s San Quentin prison found that 100% of them experienced extreme violence between the ages of one and ten. The overall scores within these two risk factors, combined with Baker’s extremely high rate of child abuse and juvenile arrests, make these combined factors of great importance. Several workgroup members expressed the family as the base from which all else emanates. Without a solid, positive, and strong family support system, children are more likely to turn to high-risk behavior. Unless these factors are addressed, it is unlikely that the others will be prevented or reduced.
The numbers in this group are generally well above the state rates, and in several indicators are considerably higher. The trend is toward an increase in at least half of the indicators, and these two risk factors cluster with each of the other factors. Also noticeable about this risk factor is that it affects all developmental phases of a child, from birth through adulthood. CHOSEN RISK FACTORS In preparation for the January community meeting, over 150 invitations were mailed to various agencies and businesses from the government, private, and non-profit sectors. During the January meeting, there were approximately 50 people in attendance. Following a detailed presentation of the data and analysis, the attendees were asked to select the five risk factors they felt were most pertinent to Baker County. At the request of the group, the risk factors of family management problems and family conflict were joined together as one. The rationale given was that they are too closely related to separate them. The four risk factors and data pertinent to each risk factor and data indicator follow.
|
