Weslaco Police Department First-Time Offender Program $50 ✓ Solved

Weslaco Police Department First-time Offender Program $50 En

Weslaco Police Department First-time Offender Program $50 Enrollment Fee Proposal. Agency description: The First Offender Program is a life skills education program to divert juvenile first-time offenders (ages 10-16) from the juvenile justice system and allow expungement of arrest records. Enrollment criteria: youth 10-16, referred by Weslaco Police Department, first offenders (Class A, B, State Jail Felonies), parental cooperation. Problems identified: lack of commitment and accountability from youth/parents, failure to attend sessions, failure to check in, school truancy, lack of funds for materials and client assistance. Data collected: internship observation and research articles. Intervention applied: a $50 enrollment fee collected at initial intake ($25 intake, $25 session fee). Theories/frameworks: systems theory, problem-solving framework; social work skills: brokering resources. Agency benefits: supports rehabilitation, provides funding for materials and client assistance, maintains community engagement, promotes accountability, reduces court costs. Evaluation: pre/post-test. Anticipated barrier: Chief of Police may not view fee as needed. Recommendations: implement documented payment form, provide tangible services. Proposal requirements: include title page, abstract/summary, list of potential funders (or explain self-sustaining via fee), need/problem statement with who identified the problem and data sources, detailed project narrative with goals, objectives, activities, evaluation plan, budget summary and itemized budget (materials, brochures, session materials, staffing hours), staffing roles and process for collection and accounting, reflection on competencies and use of theory, and at least three research sources cited in APA style.

Paper For Above Instructions

Title Page

Proposal: $50 Enrollment Fee Proposal

Name: Dayna Cazares

Agency: Weslaco Police Department First-time Offender Program

Date: November 24, 2019

Funding Requested: None (self-sustaining fee)

Abstract / Summary

This proposal recommends implementing a $50 enrollment fee for the Weslaco Police Department First-time Offender Program (FOP) to improve client commitment and provide modest program funding for materials and client assistance. The fee (split $25 intake, $25 session) is collected at successful initial intake. The intervention is grounded in systems theory and a problem-solving framework and uses brokering skills to link families to supports. Program impacts will be measured via pre/post-test outcomes, attendance records, and recidivism indicators (Labriola et al., 2018; Rempel et al., 2018).

Need / Problem Statement

Observation during internship identified persistent low commitment from youth and parents (missed sessions, failure to check in weekly, school truancy) and insufficient funds to provide hands-on materials, outreach distribution, and client assistance (food, clothing, transportation). These issues degrade program effectiveness and reduce diversion success (OJJDP, 2013). The problem was identified by the intern (Dayna Cazares) and corroborated by the case manager and program staff through observation and client feedback.

Program Narrative: Intervention, Goals, and Objectives

Intervention: Implement a $50 mandatory enrollment fee collected at intake to create a tangible commitment and generate modest revenue for program supplies and client supports. Fee structure: $25 at intake (administrative, intake materials) and $25 designated for session materials and client assistance.

Goals

  • Increase youth and guardian commitment and participation in FOP sessions.
  • Generate program funds for materials, outreach, and limited client assistance.
  • Maintain diversion alternatives and reduce formal processing and placement costs.

Objectives

  • Raise average program attendance by 30% within 12 months (attendance logs).
  • Establish a dedicated FOP account and track monthly fee deposits within 3 months.
  • Provide materials and client assistance to at least 75% of enrolled families in need each quarter.

Activities

Collect fee at intake; provide printed program materials and a receipt; log payment and deposit to FOP account managed by the Chief’s office; distribute materials and small assistance vouchers; require signed payment agreement to reinforce accountability.

Theoretical Framework and Social Work Skills

Systems theory highlights how family, school, and justice system interrelate and how a small change (fee) can influence commitment and engagement across systems (Bronfenbrenner-inspired approaches) (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1995). The problem-solving framework structures assessment, goal setting, and monitoring (Sherman & Strang, 2007). Social work skills emphasized include brokering (linking families to resources), engagement, and culturally competent communication.

Agency Benefits and Expected Outcomes

The fee is expected to increase perceived value of the program and family investment, fund essential materials and limited client supports, and reduce reliance on court processes by improving diversion completion rates (Labriola et al., 2018; NIJ, 2018). Cost-savings from reduced court processing and placements are anticipated and will be monitored.

Evaluation Plan

Primary measures: pre/post-test assessments (knowledge, attitudes), attendance/completion rates, check-in compliance, and short-term recidivism (6–12 months). Data sources: intake forms, weekly check-in logs, case manager reports, and juvenile records (with confidentiality safeguards). A mixed-methods approach uses quantitative attendance and completion data plus qualitative participant feedback (Fagan & Kupchik, 2019).

Budget Summary and Itemized Costs

The program is self-funded by the $50 fee. Estimated monthly revenue at 20 intakes/month = $1,000. Typical expenditures per month:

  • Session materials and handouts: $150
  • Brochures and outreach printing: $100
  • Client assistance (transport vouchers, supplies): $400
  • Administrative processing (deposit fees, receipts): $50
  • Reserve for staffing overtime or trainers: $300

Detailed accounting will be maintained by the Chief-designated FOP account; deposits will be made by the case manager after intake (Maritza Lara) with monthly reconciliation.

Staffing and Process

Existing staff: case manager handles intake, receipt issuance, and deposits. Additional needs: periodic contract facilitator for skill sessions paid from fee revenue. Payment collection workflow: signed fee agreement at intake → payment collected by case manager → receipt issued → deposit to FOP account within 48 hours.

Anticipated Barriers and Recommendations

Primary barrier: leadership resistance (Chief of Police may view fee as inappropriate). Recommendation: present evidence from diversion literature showing small fees can increase engagement while offering hardship waivers and payment plans for indigent families (OJJDP, 2013; Center for Court Innovation, 2018). Implement documentation forms and transparent accounting; allow fee waivers based on need to avoid access barriers.

Conclusion and Reflection

The $50 enrollment fee is a pragmatic, low-burden intervention designed to enhance family commitment, provide program resources, and preserve diversion as an alternative to formal process. The project integrates theory and practice, builds brokering skills, and strengthens agency sustainability. As an intern, this process reinforced the importance of evidence-informed policy practice and collaborative problem solving in community settings (Mulvey & Schubert, 2011).

References

  • Labriola, M., Reich, W. A., Davis, R. C., Hunt, P., Rempel, M., & Cherney, S. (2018). Prosecutor-Led Pretrial Diversion. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.courtinnovation.org
  • Rempel, M., Labriola, M., Hunt, P., Davis, R. C., Reich, W. A., & Cherney, S. (2018). NIJ’s Multisite Evaluation of Prosecutor-Led Diversion Programs. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.courtinnovation.org
  • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2013). Juvenile Diversion Guidance and Research. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov
  • National Institute of Justice. (2018). Multisite Evaluation of Diversion Programs. U.S. Department of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov
  • Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1995). Balanced and Restorative Justice Program Outcomes for Juveniles. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 46(1), 3–14.
  • Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice Research: The Evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(2), 125–150.
  • Fagan, J., & Kupchik, A. (2019). Diversion and Juvenile Outcomes: Evidence and Policy Applications. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 45–70.
  • Pew Charitable Trusts. (2015). State Responses to Juvenile Offenders: Trends and Data. https://www.pewtrusts.org
  • Texas Juvenile Justice Department. (2019). Texas Juvenile Justice Data and Program Guidance. https://www.tjjd.texas.gov
  • Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University. (2014). Best Practices in Juvenile Diversion. https://cjjr.georgetown.edu

Related Assignments