NCJ Number
77292
Date Published
1981
Length
60 pages
Annotation
This document contains the results of a needs assessment survey of 53 direct service workers, directors, and judges involved in delinquency prevention and treatment in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Abstract
Supplementing this questionnaire are city and county juvenile arrest data, community-based alternatives program performance information, and statistics collected from the court clerk's office, juvenile court counseling service, and the Gatling Juvenile Diagnostic Center. Priority rankings of 15 general service areas (such as adult volunteers, alternative schools, job placement, and drug/alcohol education), and examinations, assessments, and suggested alternatives of 25 specific programs are presented (Lutheran Family Services group homes, Mecklenburg court volunteers, and the youth services bureau, among others). The 15 services identified in the needs assessment and ranked by order of priority are the key components of an effective local juvenile justice system. County funding decisions for local juvenile justice programs should be based on effectiveness and appropriateness ranking. The action board must conduct individual program monitoring to supplement information provided by needs assessment respondents. Data pertaining to involvement of Charlotte-Mecklenburg youth with the juvenile court system continues to reflect a long-term decline in all reporting categories. Successful diversion of youth from the juvenile court system can be attributed to changes in juvenile law, increased availability of community-based diversion and treatment programs, and local support for the concept of community-based alternatives to juvenile court. The respondents report a continuing need for long-term residential programs for girls, for inpatient psychiatric services, and for improved program coordination. However, no single program was identified as a top-priority unmet need. Therefore, the action board will emphasize program monitoring as its primary activity during 1980-81. Charts and tables rank programs on a point basis and a sample needs questionnaire with a count of actual responses is appended. (Author abstract modified)