Attending:

Members - Reggie Bicha, Pierce County; John Chrest, Wood County; Mary Jo Keating, Outagamie County; Charmian Klyve, Rock County; Kathy Malone, Milwaukee County; Dave Sarow, Polk County; Tom Schleitwiler, Jefferson County; Ann Wondergem, Sheboygan County; Silvia Jackson, Paul Westerhaus, Kris Krenke, Pam Eitland, and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC; and Mark Campbell, WI-DHFS. Observer - Sarah Diedrick-Kasdorf, WI Counties Association.

Silvia Jackson welcomed new member Dave Sarow, Polk County Juvenile Court Intake, who represents the WI Juvenile Court Intake Association.

The minutes of the November 16, 2001 meeting were approved. (Keating moved, Wondergem seconded)

SB 384, DOC Ch. 938 modifications: The bill had a hearing in the Senate Economic Development and Corrections Committee. The committee amended the bill at the request of DOC and WI Council on Children and Families (WCCF). The amendment removed language in the bill that would have standardized all ages for transfer to/placement in prison at age 15. WCCF had objected to the age changes, and DOC agreed the changes were not necessary to the bill. The committee recommended the bill and amendment for Senate passage. Currently, the bill awaits scheduling for a Senate floor vote. The companion bill, AB 729, had a hearing in the Assembly Corrections and the Courts Committee on February 6. [Note: On February 27, the committee voted to recommend Assembly passage of AB 729 and its amendment.]

AB 809, DHFS ASFA-related changes: The bill was drafted to include Ch. 48 and Ch. 938 provisions. It had a hearing in the Assembly Children and Families Committee on February 14. Mary Jo Keating was pleased the bill did not identify a capias/warrant as constituting a "first removal from the home" for the purpose of ASFA findings. [Note: AB 809 passed the Assembly 97-2 on February 26, with two amendments. It received a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5.] As with SB 384, it is hoped the bill can be passed by both houses before the end of the floor period on March 14, which is the close of the regular legislative session.

Juvenile Justice law training: The DOC Training Center contracted with Frank Crisafi to present four one-day intensive sessions on juvenile law in April. Target audience is staff working in DJC, county agencies and private agencies providing dispositional services. (Persons whose only job is juvenile court intake are not the intended target audience.) Registration is low to date, and we know counties may be scaling back their training budgets in response to anticipated budget cuts. Even if turnout for all four sessions isn't adequate, DOC/DJC should continue the state-county JJ training initiative. The group suggested ways for DOC/DJC to reduce the cost of offering training, including using low- or no-cost facilities such as county offices. It was also noted that a more northern location for training should be used (e.g. Rhinelander) to make it accessible to northern counties.

ASFA training: Pam Eitland reported DJC is producing a 1-hour training video on ASFA regulations as applied to youth being released from juvenile correctional facilities. The video format was chosen to reduce cost (compared to the previously-planned satellite training) and to be an ongoing resource for staff training. The larger ASFA training - i.e., statewide, covering all types of child/youth cases - will take place according to the curriculum developed with the Muskie Institute. Mark Campbell explained that DHFS is reviewing the draft Muskie curriculum, adding and changing elements to make it fit Wisconsin (including adding juvenile justice components), and planning to pilot the training May 7-8 on a test audience in Wausau. Over the summer, the pilot curriculum will be evaluated and revised, then (with DHFS approval) rolled out via the Partnerships for statewide training beginning in September. Dave Sarow noted that once the state statutes are changed to incorporate ASFA elements, the training will proceed logically.

WCHSA is considering a platform position for the 03-05 state budget session recommending the administration of non-correctional juvenile justice programs be transferred from DOC to DHFS. Silvia Jackson asked the group if, given this WCHSA initiative, there's a need for the DJC-TAC and its process? Or have counties decided it's not appropriate to work on delinquency-related issues with DOC?

Discussion focused on a number of factors. In summary:

• Administrative convenience and consistency. Several county directors addressed the complexity of dealing with two or three state agencies (DHFS, DOC and DWD) on matters related to multi-problem families specifically and service provision and funding generally, including multiple state-county contracts. John Chrest pointed out whereas the state has encouraged the formation of county departments of human services to handle juvenile justice, child welfare, economic support and a host of other programs in one integrated department, the state has multiple agencies. Some committee members alleged a lack of coordination and consistency at the state level on issues such as ASFA, training, and data (e.g., WiSACWIS).

• Contrast between Ch. 48 and Ch. 938. The split of youth services between Ch. 48 and Ch. 938 created differences in legal philosophy and intent that can be difficult to administer on the local level. Agencies strive to implement a family-based services model in their programs, but are confounded by the Ch. 938 focus on individual youth rather than the whole family. Reggie Bicha explained that particularly in small counties, case workers wear multiple hats, and it can be confusing for them to have to keep switching between the various chapters of law.

• Resources for county consultation. Ann Wondergem suggested a more integrated state bureaucratic structure would work better in dealing with counties on children/youth/family issues. Counties appreciate the DHFS regional office staff that help work on issues and initiatives in one county, multiple counties in a region, or across regions. DHFS's outreach to counties to help them plan for possible human service budget reductions was very helpful. DOC provides high-quality consultation on juvenile justice programs and law, according to Dave Sarow, but with very few staff. Mary Jo Keating gave her view that DHFS focuses on Ch. 48 and child welfare programs, DOC focuses on juvenile corrections, but state agency leadership on non-correctional delinquency cases and programs is lacking.

• Alternatives to WCHSA platform. Support was voiced for the original WCHSA JJ committee's suggested platform, to study the administration of juvenile justice and child welfare at the state level and make recommendations. Kathy Malone suggested what is needed is inter-agency coordination, just like at the county level. The bureaucratic location of various state-level programs isn't the biggest issue.

• DOC role in administration of county juvenile justice programs. Mary Jo Keating asked why DOC does not have a major administrative/oversight role in juvenile justice, similar to DHFS role for child welfare. Shelley Hagan gave her view that under state and federal law, DHFS has clear responsibility for overseeing a host of children and family programs with reams of rules. DHFS receives substantial federal funding tied to administration of, e.g., Title IV-E. In contrast, since the creation of Youth Aids in 1980-81, the program has been administered with maximum flexibility for counties and minimum rules from the state. As a result, DOC inherited from DHFS in 1996 only a minimal state administrative structure for juvenile justice. Except in areas such as Community Intervention, where state funding is tied in statute to specific rules, DJC has very little control over counties' juvenile justice program operation.

At the end of discussion, there was a motion to keep the DJC-TAC going, even with ideas about structural change in juvenile justice administration under discussion, unless/until the Legislature would act to change DOC's role in juvenile justice services (Klyve moved, Bicha seconded). Approved unanimously.

Silvia Jackson briefly presented an outline of the Division's LifeWork Education initiative, per the draft Administrator's Memo distributed to the committee. Based on an assessment using the computer-based CareerScope and an individualized set of lifework goals and objectives, all youth in JCIs will begin to develop their own career portfolios. The portfolio is a tool to develop career awareness among youth, document their career planning, and consolidate various employment-related documents in one place. Counties should be aware that the portfolio would leave the JCI when the youth leaves, and in most cases be forwarded to the state or county worker responsible for aftercare. The Division is establishing partnerships with local workforce development agencies in order to leverage their resources for vocational training and placement when youth return to the community.

Discussion focused on linking delinquent youth to workforce development resources. Some local workforce boards are reluctant to serve delinquent youth, even though these youth are a target group of the program. John Chrest noted that Wood County's restitution program is located in a Job Center, permitting program coordination rather than just individual-level program placement.

Shelley Hagan presented several spreadsheets with information on trends in county expenditures on services under Ch. 938, with a focus on costs for alternate care and correctional placement. John Chrest noted that despite counties' success in diverting more youth from out-of-home placement, increases in daily charges for CCIs and JCIs eat up any savings that might otherwise be realized from diversion efforts. The committee members found the data of interest and hoped it could continue to be provided.

Ideas for topics to consider at future meetings:

• Independent living

• Results of OJA surveys

• Funding and budget issues

• Brainstorm re legislative proposals that might be pursued in 03-05 (including court intake services contracting, and courts making placements to DSS/DHS rather than to specific facility/type)

VIII. Next Meeting Friday, April 19, 2002, 1:00 to 3:30, Madison - DOC Headquarters, Secretary's Conference Room