Final Project Paper Local & State Gov't. Building Stronger Communities by Supporting Non- Profits and Community-Based Alternatives - Narrative & Survey Results

 

RESEARCH PROJECT – Final Updated 043021                                                                        

Lawrence E. Feirman

State & Local Government, May 5, 2021

Research Project & Paper 

        Building Stronger Communities by Supporting Non- Profits and 

        Community-Based Alternatives  to  Youth Incarceration

                           Narrative & Survey Results

 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SNG5G5TMaFmSK-mv5ZH6CJIXVs4lRCd1Iz12pw0pODU/edit#responses

( Double Click on Link above for Survey Results)

I Introduction & Background

As part of my State & Local Government class at Notre Dame de Namur University, I worked with two CP’s (Community Partner’s), that perform services for their local communities (Friends For Youth-FFY, Project Read).  In some cases, these are services that are no longer provided in schools, or for budgetary circumstances, no longer provided by the city/town. 

I am volunteering with two non -profits, and also conversing with an organization that works within the prison system, focused predominantly on incarcerated youth (Victim Insight Project). 

In all three situations my purpose was understand how they work, to then work with them to understand what they do, and from that experience, conduct a survey that addresses their concerns and possible way forward.  In addition to understand their functioning, my purpose was to assess the community’s thoughts on the prevention of youth incarceration, demonstrate the importance of a non-profits contributions to our youth.  As I saw it, there is a three-step process; early involvement with grammar – middle school youth (Project Read), then involvement at the high school level by adding a mentoring add on type program(s), which is the role that Friends For Youth provides.  When, and if those measures don’t produce the desired outcomes and youth are incarcerated, how best does the community serve incarcerated youth and adults (Victim Insight Project) at the local level.

Fund raising, community volunteerism, and private donations do not always suffice in supporting these needed non-profits.  Another focus of my survey was the assessment of the surveyed on how best do we use our tax dollars to support our communities, and where necessary, how do we fund, raise and volunteer to support the community in supporting our youth. 

My Community Partner Project is a very important and vital part to my final year of education at NDNU. I approached the CPP (Community Partner Project) with three things in mind:  

• Work with a community partner, (Project Read) by being an active contributor working with youth in improving their literacy skills.  The majority, if not all of their operating costs are funded by the state and city, with volunteers.

• Involve myself with a Non - Profit (Friends For Youth), whose funds are raised mostly through grants and fundraising ( 80%+).  For this involvement, I was given a number of operational tasks by the CEO to analyze and possibly make suggestions for improvement, After graduation, I will complete the tasks that I was not able to complete because of school commitments.

• Last, but far from least, I had the opportunity on a weekly basis to speak with the CEO of a non-profit whose organization works with youth and adults inside of prison(s).  I was intrigued by her commitment to those  incarcerated, her ability to see the individual as more than a criminal, but most importantly, her insight on how best to prevent incarceration.   

Non- Profit Organizations (NPO’s) play a vital role in developing healthy communities.  They provide critical services that contribute to economic stability and mobility and that are either overlooked or do not receive funding so that they may thrive. They also strengthen communities in other important ways. Those involvements will be presented and explained, along with solutions for their creation, introduction and finally, the on-boarding process.  In addition, I will also discuss and focus on the incarceration of youths, what can be done prior to that status-situation by a nonprofit organization, and then what can be done to support youth incarceration when preventative processes were not successful and incarceration was assigned.  A final focus will be on where tax dollars are spent and how best to use those funds more effectively.  

Many times, nonprofit leaders are the voice of the people they serve. These leaders can see the obstacles, issues and shortfalls within their communities.  The strength of these individuals are normally a formidable understanding, strong relationship and intimate local knowledge of their communities.   These organizations often understand better than anyone else their communities’ concerns, needs, and the prudent ways to meet them. When well-resourced nonprofits are connected to the decision-making infrastructure within their communities that can catalyze growth and opportunity, positive action occurs.

In addition to my two nonprofit organizations in my community of Redwood City, CA., and a nonprofit in San Francisco who deal directly with incarcerated youth and 

adults, as this too was an area of importance, one that is underserved, misunderstood, and an area where preventative methods can do the most for youth and community.   

Both non-profits, their models and funding differ, their involvements are equally important. What they do have in common is the services they supply the community; roles that were once performed by the town, city, state, or federal government.  More and more these services are outsourced or completely forgotten.  

Contest for funds can be  very competitive, and alignment with the funder and funded requires a perfect alignment of mission and vision.  It is an arduous process for the NPO’s and more often than not the funded are not successful. This is especially the case with the Redwood City based Friends For Youth(FFY).  The receive very little municipal funding and spend approximately 70% of their productivity time responding to grants, or fund raising which is arduous and  at times reaps minimal results.

Nonprofits spend nearly $2 trillion annually, including $826 billion on salaries, benefits and payroll taxes. The vast majority of the nonprofit sector is comprised of small organizations, with almost nine out of 10 spending less than $500,000 annually. Overall, 80 cents of every dollar of nonprofit revenue in the United States comes from government grants or contracts and fees for services. Universities and hospitals skew the numbers a bit, accounting for much of the 49 percent of nonprofit revenue derived specifically from private fees for services. Only about 10 percent of overall nonprofit comes from individual donations and another 4 percent from foundations. 

In the case of the non-profit that is not funded by the state, county or city of Redwood City, Friends For Youth (FFY),  the predominant focus and the basis for my survey will be directed to the possibilities of state funds, taxes, etc., redirected from juvenile detention centers to non-profits that offer preventative services that can be offered to incarcerated youth already in detention or as a preventative community service for a fee to municipalities in need.

My research and survey attempt to investigate the civilian support for an allocation of state and city taxes supporting programs that would reach incarcerated youths, but also use funds at the preventative level. There is also the possibility to fund community projects via a local city tax, or mandatory volunteerism ( if not possible an assessed fee). 

Another consideration  explored and surveyed was the residential support of a reallocation of state and local taxes, (ballot measure) traditionally apportioned by the state to youth prisons, detention centers ,and instead earmark those revenues to local community nonprofits that support juvenile initiatives.

Overall, the focus of this paper and subsequent survey was to address upstream and downstream programs that support our youth in communities that may be under served, and where social-financial issues invite risk for our community youth.

II Literature Review ||  Interpretation & Understanding

What California Did and Continues to do in the Support of Youth:

 

“Reduce, Reform, Reinvest”

    Over the past 20 years, California has instituted a number of reforms aimed at reducing the number of youth in state custody. AB 2312, enacted in 1996, required counties to cover a share of the cost of committing local youth to state facilities and appropriated $33 million to support local youth justice programs to provide counties with more options. Simultaneously, challenge and facilities grants gave counties funds to create a graduated series of sanctions and to build local youth facilities. In 2007, legislation was enacted that further narrowed the pipeline by reserving commitments to state facilities for youth who have committed serious offenses. Along with these changes, the state has also enacted programs to increase prevention (AB 1913 in 2000) and to incentivize diversion from state custody to county probation (the California Probation Subsidy Act). 

    The result of these changes has been a dramatic 80-percent decrease in youth in state facilities (700 in 2015 versus 10,000 in 1996) and the closure of eight of California’s eleven large youth prisons. Nevertheless, some youth still are housed in prisonlike settings, managed by the county rather than the state. Moreover, Proposition 21 passed in 2000, making it much easier for youth to be tried as adults and sentenced to adult facilities. A ballot initiative, supported by Governor Jerry Brown, appeared on the ballot in November 2016 to overturn most of the provisions of Proposition 21 and return the decision about whether youth will be tried as adults to judges.   In 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a new budget that took into consideration the devastating financial effect of the pandemic. 

    “The governor’s proposal would close the last three youth prisons and a fire camp run by the state’s juvenile justice system, halting a more than 100-year tradition of incarcerating California’s youngest offenders at remote warehouse-like facilities. Instead, juvenile offenders who have committed the most serious and violent crimes would remain at county-run detention facilities overseen by local probation departments.” 

    There are a number of youth advocate programs (YAP’s) that provide direct services to youth who are currently, have been, or are at risk of referral to incarceration and who have been rejected by all other similar service providers. One of the proposed plans by non-profits ( FFY – Friends For Youth) is to engage with the state(s) (California) by offering a cost-effective alternative to institutional rehabilitation for adjudicated youth. With the transfer of responsibilities from State to counties in California, local agencies could contract with yap(s) on a per-head cost basis.

Juvenile felony arrest rate.ORG

felony arrests are shown per 100,000 youth ages 10-17. The rate of juvenile felony arrests shows the size of the county's juvenile justice population relative to its total youth population.

1. San Francisco

2. Merced

3. Santa Cruz

4. Alameda 

5. Monterey

6. Santa Clara

7. Sonoma

8. San Mateo

                                            THEN

3

                                                

                                                    NOW  

The fact sheet findings

   

Included:

• Confining youth in California’s state correctional facilities will cost an estimated $271,318 per youth in 

        FY 2016-17.

• DJJ’s cost per youth has increased annually since FY 2011-12. For the last three fiscal years, the state has spent approximately a quarter of a million dollars annually for each youth at DJJ.

• Counties only reimburse the state for a small share of DJJ costs (an estimated 9 percent) for youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court. The remaining costs, and full costs for youth prosecuted as adults, are transferred to taxpayers.

• The most recent three-year recidivism rates for youth released from DJJ are high and reported inconsistently. In early 2017, DJJ released a report showing 74.2 percent of youth were re-arrested, 53.8 percent were reconvicted of new offenses, and 37.3 percent had returned to state custody within three years of release from DJJ.

Programming could focus on providing marginalized youth with an opportunity to re-integrate with society through a network of community-based care providers by emphasizing - building on each youth’s existing strengths; accordingly, the unique circumstances of each case dictate the application of yap’s model.

Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic decline in youth arrests and a fundamental shift in its approach to youth justice. Recognizing the detrimental effects of incarceration on youth and communities, states and localities are increasingly embracing community-based strategies to prevent, intervene, and respond 

to harmful and/or illegal behavior. Yet, despite this shift, they continue to funnel the vast majority of funding to incarceration rather than investing in community-driven solutions. Building a true continuum of care and opportunity for youth and families in their home communities to both prevent and address the root causes of illegal behavior requires substantial investment, particularly given that communities disproportionately impacted by youth incarceration often also experience concentrated disadvantage that creates structural barriers to youth’ success.  There is a pressing need to identify proven, promising, and innovative strategies for investing in community-based solutions and, moreover, to follow the lead of those closest to the challenges on the ground in developing and implementing tailored strategies. This is the next frontier of juvenile justice reform and crucial to the kind of transformational change that true justice demands.

How best do we bring together the vision that will culminate in creating a solution to the bigger issue(s) at hand.  , There are a recurring communication from a number of non-profits that I investigated, and in the case of FFY, got a first-hand look at important issues to contemplate and remember:  The practical:

Funding Challenges - Competition

• Dealing with government contracts’ thin margins and slow payment cycles. .

• Filling management positions from within 

Structuring Investments to Address Youth and Community Needs 

Because youth, their families, and their communities are the primary stakeholders in youth justice investment strategies, it is essential that they are given opportunities to inform such strategies by sharing their expertise, perspectives, and experiences. In communities with high rates of justice system contact (which disproportionately include communities of color and communities with high rates of poverty) members are often excluded both from policy conversations and budget lines associated with justice and safety (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018). This constitutes a missed opportunity, as the people closest to public safety challenges have critical perspectives and insights with which to inform the development of effective solutions. 

Actions That Help Propel Growth in Funding

• Translated political crises into funding opportunities ( Beginning Jul.2021 in CA)

• Relying on professional founders, best practices in and outside the sector of youth action programs

• Using data to support and market the proposed model, in addition to using statistics to communicate a development new products services based on existing customers. The starting point combined with continued efforts to track data on costs and outcomes 

• Cultivate passion among frontline staff by recruiting those who can succeed in the proposed model, and to inspire them on an ongoing basis. This has been crucial to the success of a high-touch, grassroots service delivery model.

The following websites (below) and others will be  used to explore what alternatives there are to traditional non-profit fund-raising.  There are some organizations that are looking to shorten the response time to for grants and increase the success rate of getting funding by using artificial intelligence, automated processes that identify key

Phrases, wording, and requirements.  This is just one way of improving an existing process/protocol. 

There are other practices being used to organize funding more quickly and in a less formal process, although the largest funders usually have the deepest pockets and endowment.  The “Friends For Youths” non-profit I am working with is having me work on a number of operational processes and practices to devise alternatives to traditional funding.

Friends For Youth Model – FFY

   

 

The Victim Insight Project  

Is a nonprofit that facilitates peer support groups for those serving extended sentences in prisons in Northern California for violent crimes. Our groups are designed to promote community safety and repair by encouraging participants to explore the legacy of their own trauma and hold themselves accountable for their harms as key steps towards healing. Our supportive group culture builds a sense of community and resilience among our participants and guides them towards reclaiming a healthier sense of identity. In that way, we help to empower each group member to reconnect with their own humanity and the humanity of their victims so they can shed their shame and choose a positive path forward in their lives. All of our programs are informed by the voices and needs of survivors of trauma and places human dignity at the forefront.

OUR VALUES

Mass incarceration in the United States has incapacitated and alienated hundreds of thousands of people, perpetuating immeasurable and disproportionate trauma against people of color and others oppressed by economic and social inequities. 

OUR PROGRAMS

All of our programs are informed by the voices and needs of survivors of trauma and places human dignity at the forefront.

The CLEAR Program — Cultivating Learning Empathy and Repair

CLEAR is a two-year peer support program through which group members examine the lasting impacts of their crime and commit to understanding the pain they have caused others. The program encourages group members to unpack and process their traumatic experiences in the safety of a trusted peer group so that they can make peace with and free themselves from the shame and grip of their negative emotions. 

The WOW Workshop — Writing Our Worth

Our Writing Our Worth workshop is a six-month writing-based program that promotes the use of writing as a way to gain clarity over the past and to make meaning of it. The act of writing encourages deeper thinking and more mindful expression of thought. In our workshop, we encourage participants, through a series of weekly writing prompts, to draw connections between the past and present to gain insight and understanding of their own stories. 

CLEAR Support

CLEAR Support is a correspondence-based course offering people who are incarcerated the opportunity to work through dynamics and issues related to their experience in prison and those that preceded their sentences. The program focuses on supporting the ongoing development of participants’ reflective capacities, ability to put their experiences into words, and identify personal goals and objectives that represent whole health, wellbeing, etc. Participants apply to the program and upon acceptance, receive materials on a monthly basis that cover a range of topics such as group dynamics, cultural competency, emotional intelligence, communication skills, empathy, and accountability. They are paired with a volunteer who reads, reflects upon and responds to their work via correspondence. 

  Youth involved in the juvenile justice (JJ) system have high needs for behavioral health services, especially related to substance use and mental disorders.  Studies conducted are focused on understanding the extent to which the model of behavioral health services for JJ-involved youth are provided to youth by Community Supervision (CS) and/or Behavioral Health (BH) providers. 

Many involved agencies in this area of expertise have used a number of survey-based tools in order to understand interactions across community services.  Parallel surveys are also to confirm the characteristics of youth served are useful and effective.  There has to be services that are provided directly and/or by referral, use of evidence-based practices (EBPs), and methods of collaboration, referral, and information exchange across CS and BH providers to ensure proof of concept, acceptance and ultimately, funding. 

III Methodology

The survey (attached link below) I conducted was conducted  using Google Survey, and consisted of twenty- six (26) survey questions and responses     (combined) in the PowerPoint presentation given on April 29, 2021.  A copy of the same is located on my class blog.

The inherent weakness in surveys of this type are:

• Audience – recipients is limited as I do not utilize a social media product except for LinkedIn, which I reserve for industry related business

• Being that this is a fairly new topic for me, it is difficult to imagine, or anticipate the depth of my knowledge on the subject, and then how one response could introduce another, etc.

• In many cases, and from previous experiences, recipients are hesitant to respond to unknown senders with attachments from Google survey.  It is a matter of their security and that they are not familiar with the sender

• There are times that those that do respond, and are known to me, might not answer truthfully, as their responses might be an embarrassment

• Known responders, family, friends are a plausible cross section of our society, so the validity is acceptable

• Having access to legitimate mailing lists, recipients of organizations, agencies, professional entities in the future would expand the response base and deliver a more legitimate and varied response across a larger citizenry base.

1.) Presentation + Survey Slides Final 042921.pdf

2.) https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SNG5G5TMaFmSK-mv5ZH6CJIXVs4lRCd1Iz12pw0pODU/edit#responses

3.) Survey Questions only 

4.) https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SNG5G5TMaFmSK-mv5ZH6CJIXVs4lRCd1Iz12pw0pODU/edit

5.) Individual data by recipient ( emails removed) .xlsx & .csv files

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k3E6J8F4DsqKfDhximpYoePj0kJ_HIhbOck4TjjG9eA/edit?resourcekey#gid=1159761780edit#responses

IV Results

All results are shown-detailed in the links above.  A recap of the data with bullet points of noteworthy details are shown below.

   

V Analysis 

The results & analysis of my survey is visible by accessing the google survey results below:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SNG5G5TMaFmSK-mv5ZH6CJIXVs4lRCd1Iz12pw0pODU/edit - responses 

VI Conclusion – Areas for Future Research

The leadership, commitment, and courage that are beginning to be seen in efforts taking place across the country and highlighted here are needed in every state to, at long last, close every youth prison and replace this failed, harmful approach with one that can help youth get back on track. Seldom in American policy are incentives and imperatives so closely aligned — youth development, fiscal prudence, and community safety would be far better served by closing every last youth prison and replacing these factories of failure with pathways to success for all youth.

Improving upon and deepening the questions of  this survey with the help of seasoned professionals involved in this sector today would make a marked improvement.  I would also interview and survey incarcerated youth, youth that 

are recipients of assistance from non-profits, community services, the exact audience that these programs described herein are meant to help and assist.

In the event that this paper will serve as a roadmap to my next career, I will reach out to those who assisted me in understanding what I learned during this exercise and so much more.  Those individuals are listed below (VII -Bibliography & Professional Contacts).  Possible questions for follow-up and development.

• Capturing more detail, and asking recipients why to slide #22

 

• In slide #10, inquire as to why it would not be less disruptive.

• In Slide #18, asking those recipients who answered no (31.8%) what would inspire them to becoming more involved.  What would their vision of involvement look like?  

• Areas for Future Research

o Conduct a county wide survey on how monies should be spent when it has to do with juvenile incarceration programs, and preventative measure to ensure that incarceration does not occur.

o Determine how the county, city and state conduct professional surveys and the database of contacts used to procure a fact based, unbiased result.

o With the reported California budget surplus of nearly $24bil., what should be done with that amount with regards to community projects-program with regards to youth.  How should “our” dollars be spent.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SNG5G5TMaFmSK-mv5ZH6CJIXVs4lRCd1Iz12pw0pODU/edit#responses

 

VII Bibliography

“60+ Fundraising Ideas for Schools and Education: Start Raising Money!” Fundly. Accessed March 13, 2021. https://blog.fundly.com/fundraising-ideas-for-schools-and-education/.

Author(s) Patrick McCarthy; Vincent Schiraldi; Miriam Shark, Patrick, Vince Schiraldi, and Miriam Shark. “Future of Youth Justice: A Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model.” New Thinking in Community Corrections. National Institute of Justice, October 2016. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/future-youth-justice-community-based-alternative-youth-prison-model.

Camp, Jeffrey. “8.3 Who Pays: Where California's Public-School Funds Come From.” ED100. Full Circle Fund, January 2021. https://ed100.org/lessons/whopays. 

Cashwell, Kaitlin, Paul Copley, and Michael Dugan. “Using Ratio Analysis to Manage Not-for-Profit Organizations.” The CPA Journal, June 5, 2019. https://www.cpajournal.com/2019/06/05/using-ratio-analysis-to-manage-not-for-profit-organizations/.

Council, Forbes Nonprofit. “Council Post: Seven Tried-And-True Alternative Forms Of Funding For Nonprofits.” Forbes Non-Profit Council. Forbes Magazine, February 14, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2019/02/14/seven-tried-and-true-alternative-forms-of-funding-for-nonprofits/?sh=639719c27182.

Eddy Charles. “Building the Prison to School Pipeline.” Urban Strategies Council. Criminal Justice Reform, Feature, Public Safety, Urban Strategies News|, August 4, 2017. https://urbanstrategies.org/building-the-prison-to-school-pipeline/.

Finklea, Kristen. “Juvenile Justice Funding Trends.” Trends in Juvenile Funding. Congressional Research Service, January 22, 2020. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44879.pdf.

Foster, William Landes. “Ten Nonprofit Funding Models (SSIR).” Stanford Social Innovation Review: Informing and Inspiring Leaders of Social Change. Bridgespan Group, 2009. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ten_nonprofit_funding_models.

Harvell, Samantha, Chloe Warnberg, Leah Sakala, and Constance Hull. “Promoting a New Direction for Youth Justice.” Innovative Strategies for Investing in Youth Justice . Justice Policy Center, March 2019. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100013/innovative_strategies_for_investing_in_youth_justice_0.pdf.

Hrywna, Mark. News September 19, Mark. “80% Of Nonprofits' Revenue Is From Government, Fee For Service.” The Non Profit Times. National Council of Non Profits, September 19, 2019. https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news/80-of-nonprofits-revenue-is-from-government-fee-for-service/.

 

Juson, Justine. “The Victim Insight Project: Cultivating Learning Empathy and Repair.” The Victim Insight Project | Cultivating Learning Empathy and Repair, March 28, 2021. https://victiminsightproject.org/.

Juvenile Detention Explained.” Juvenile Detention. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 26AD. https://www.aecf.org/blog/covid-19-juvenile-justice-survey-youth-detention-admissions-fell-by-more-th/. 

Lear, Darcy W., and Alejandro Sánchez. "Sustained Engagement with a Single Community Partner." Hispania 96, no. 2 (2013): 238-51. Accessed April 17, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23608324.

Nonprofit Impact Matters - “Episode 19: How Non Profits Strengthen the Community.” The Non Profit Times, November 2020. https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/podcast/episode-19-nonprofit-impact-matters/.

Scott, Christy K., Michael L. Dennis, Christine E. Grella, Rodney R. Funk, and Arthur J. Lurigio. “Juvenile Justice Systems of Care: Results of a National Survey of Community Supervision Agencies and Behavioral Health Providers on Services Provision and Cross-System Interactions.” Health & Justice. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, June 14, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0093-x.

Smith, Aaron Garth. “Using Property Taxes to Fund Public Schools Prompts Inequities.” Orange County Register, May 7, 2017. https://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/07/using-property-taxes-to-fund-public-schools-prompts-inequities/.

Susan Rose-Ackerman. "Charitable Giving and "Excessive" Fundraising." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 97, no. 2 (1982): 193-212. Accessed April 17, 2021. doi:10.2307/1880754.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Most Recent 5 Years At A Glance.” Foundation Directory Online. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, October 10, 2020. https://fconline.foundationcenter.org/sample/professional.

Turner, Cory, Reema Khrais, Tim Lloyd, Alexandra Olgin, Laura Isensee, Becky Vevea, and Dan Carsen. “Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem.” How School Fundings Reliance on Property Taxes. NPR, April 18, 2016. https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem.

Walker, Taylor. “California Community Non-Profits Get $1.3 Million to Push for Juvenile Justice Policy Change.” Juvenile Justice California Community Non-Profits Get $1.3 Million To Push For Juvenile Justice Policy Chang. Witness LA, April 13, 2017. https://witnessla.com/california-community-non-profits-get-1-3-million-to-push-for-juvenile-justice-policy-change/. 

Washburn , Maureen. “California's Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Reports High Recidivism Despite Surging Costs - Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. State of California, 2015. http://www.cjcj.org/news/11350.