Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC)
 

JUVENILE CORRECTIONS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting - April 19, 2002 - Madison

Minutes

Attending:

Members - John Chrest, Wood County; Lynn Green, Dane County; Jerry Huber, LaCrosse County; Charmian Klyve, Rock County; Dave Sarow, Polk County; Silvia Jackson, Paul Westerhaus, Elaine Olson, Pam Eitland, and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC; and Susan Dreyfus, Diane Waller and Mark Campbell, WI-DHFS. Observers - Sarah Diedrick-Kasdorf, WI Counties Association; Carol Wright, Marquette County.

The minutes of the February 14 meeting were approved as written.

The DOC bill, SB 384/AB 729 was not passed by the end of the session and is dead for the remainder of the year. This means the language change for Ch. 938 clarifying TPR warnings in cases where youth are placed out-of-home under a delinquency order was not made. DHFS and DJC will meet with State Courts to see what can be done to encourage courts to make the warnings in delinquency-related placements notwithstanding the lack of statutory language.

The Senate-amended version of AB 809 was accepted as an amendment to the state budget adjustment bill under consideration by the Legislature.

Copies of the DJC's field agent training video on ASFA went out to all county directors. Based on question we receive, DOC will send a written question-and-answer document out to counties later in the year.

Of the four sessions originally planned for Frank Crisafi's day-long training on Juvenile Law, two had sufficient enrollment to be held. Counties seem to be cutting back significantly on sending people to training. DOC wants to sponsor the Juvenile Law session again, likely in a location in the northern part of the state.

Kerrie Bischoff explained that periodic surveys are required by the Federal government to help develop the state's 3-year juvenile justice plan that forms the basis for $6.5 million in federal grant funds under the JJDP Act. Much of this funding is allocated by formula. The Governor's Juvenile Justice Commission guides the use of discretionary funds.

The 2002 juvenile justice survey was sent to 130 county officials. A total of 77 persons responded, representing 61 counties. In summary, counties' highest priorities were prevention programs. However, most JJDP Act funding goes to intervention programs, especially since the inception of JAIBG. One state, Indiana, managed to get a three-year plan approved that allocates more funding to the prevention side of the continuum. Some members of the Governor's Commission are trying to spread the word in Washington DC about the importance of prevention funding under JJDP, as well as continued funding for JAIBG.

The group discussed various concerns related to programs and funding. It was noted that the Governor's Commission is beginning a concentrated effort targeting disproportionate confinement of minority youth. One programmatic need mentioned by counties was detention diversion programs for youth who are picked up by law enforcement. Other possible uses of grant funds mentioned by committee members included promoting collaboration and regionalization of services, filling gaps and building capacity. The Office of Justice Assistance can help, according to Kerrie, by sharing successful grant applications as an aid to grant-writing, bringing in federal program consultants at no cost to counties, and helping to find funding sources.

Another discussion related to the county survey focused on the role of state agencies. The state was seen as a provider of services to serious and violent youth offenders and to serious sex offenders. State-level leadership and collaboration was seen as desirable in the area of alternative education. John Chrest suggested a joint DHFS-DOC-DPI effort to promote alternative schools. Mark Campbell noted STRIVE as an example of successful local collaboration. Silvia Jackson asked if this was a topic that the state Youth Policy Forum should take up (the Forum is addressing truancy currently). After some discussion, it was decided the DJC-TAC would ask DPI and DWD representatives to attend the next meeting to follow up on questions. Issues for DPI might include alternative schools, suspension and expulsion, special education and services to youth in out-of-home care. DWD would be asked to address the extent to which TANF funding can be used for services to delinquent and at-risk youth as a target group.

For 03-05, DJC will introduce the statutory language change bill again, and Silvia noted we'd appreciate the support of WCA and WCHSA in getting it passed. Sarah Diedrick-Kasdorf said WCHSA will again put forth its proposal to increase funding for community-based juvenile justice programs by an amount equal to 20% of statewide expenditures for out-of-home placement of delinquent and JIPS youth. They will also support an increase in CIP funding from $3.75 million to $5 million.

There was some discussion of the topic of county subcontracting of custody intake services. Charmian Klyve will bring additional information about Ch. 48 and Ch. 938 provisions on intake to the next discussion of possible legislative changes.

The two main topics for June 21 meeting are education services for disruptive and delinquent youth, and TANF funding. Members are to send DPI-related questions to Pam so they can be passed along to the speaker prior to the meeting. DJC will try to distribute information about TANF limits and opportunities.