|
|
Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC) Juvenile Corrections Technical Advisory Committee Meeting - June 21, 2002 - Madison Minutes Attending: Members - Reggie Bicha, Pierce County; Marty Bonk, Sheboygan County (for Ann Wondergem); Randi Celusta, Dane County (for Dave Sarow); John Chrest, Wood County; Lynn Green, Dane County; Mary Jo Keating, Outagamie County; Kathy Malone, Milwaukee County; Bev Marten, Jefferson County (for Tom Schleitwiler); Silvia Jackson, Paul Westerhaus, Elaine Olson, Kris Krenke, Pam Eitland, and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC-DJC; and Diane Waller and Mark Campbell, WI-DHFS. Observers - Janice Peters, WI-DOC-DJC I. Minutes The minutes of the April 19 meeting were approved as submitted. II. Updates HFS 44: In response to a question raised by Mary Jo Keating via e-mail, Pam Eitland clarified that DJC is represented on the work group drafting HFS 44, the permanency planning rule, along with county and DHFS staff. The work group is awaiting passage of the AB 809 provisions in the state budget adjustment bill so the provisions may be incorporated into the rules as appropriate. The workgroup will reconvene upon passage of the bill. Mary Jo explained the WCHSA Juvenile Justice Committee recommended that a "crosswalk" be prepared showing the statutory basis for each provision in HFS 44 (i.e., from Chapters 48 and 938) similar to what was done for ongoing standards. Reporting requirements: Silvia Jackson told the group that Secretary Litscher had followed up with Dennis Dornfeld (Waupaca County) regarding the concerns expressed at the WCHSA annual meeting about extensive and duplicative state reporting requirements. After discussing the issue with other county representatives, the conclusion was the DOC's requirements were not onerous, and DOC did not need to convene a committee to examine them. Most county reporting issues relate to DHFS and DWD programs, and will be taken up with those agencies. In discussion of this topic, it was suggested the committee examine the availability and interface of statewide juvenile justice and child welfare data, in context of the transition from HSRS to WiSACWIS. The topic will be put on next meeting's agenda. III. TANF Funding for Services To Juvenile Clients Mary Rowin, Deputy Administrator of the Division of Workforce Solutions in the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), addressed the group on the potential use of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) funds to pay for services to juvenile justice clients. Mary first gave some background on the congressional re-authorization of TANF. The House-passed version significantly increases the work requirements for eligibility and decreases the amount of time that can be spent in an academic education setting. Wisconsin's W-2 program is more in line with the new definitions than are some other states' programs. The Senate is working on its version of the bill, but limited time may prevent agreement on re-authorization before September 30. In that case, TANF would be continued in its current form for another year while Congress tries again. Both houses seem to agree that higher work requirements should be accompanied by more money for child care. The four purposes of TANF (end dependence on government benefits, provide assistance that allows children to be cared for by parents or relatives, prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families) appear to remain unchanged. Federal law restricts the use of TANF funds for "juvenile justice" services. Only States which included juvenile justice services in their approved AFDC state plans as of September 1995 may use TANF funds for specific juvenile justice purposes. Not having used AFDC funds for juvenile justice programs, Wisconsin is not eligible to do so with TANF funds. Community Reinvestment funds, while more flexible, still cannot be used for non-TANF-qualifying purposes. CR funds have been a resource for local agencies to provide services to parents and youth. But in the slowing state/national economy, DWD has advised local CR contractors to consider reserving additional funds for cash benefits rather than services. In discussion, John Chrest promoted the idea of pro-active investment in delinquent juveniles and their families as a way of preventing criminality and encouraging young people to grow up into responsible workers and parents. Mary Rowin noted that TANF is primarily an employment program, which can serve juvenile justice clients when appropriate on an individual basis. An example of an innovative program is the joint DWD-DHFS "Ellsworth Reunification Project" targeting women leaving Ellsworth Correctional Center who have needs - employment, substance abuse, parenting - that span multiple systems. Mary again emphasized that cash grants and child care will be the state's TANF spending priorities, although demonstration projects will continue to be useful in testing out new ideas. Juvenile justice clients may be eligible for a variety of TANF-funded services based on individual needs, as long as TANF funds aren't used to supplant other funding sources. IV. Education Services for Delinquent and High-Risk Youth Steve Fernan, a DPI consultant in the areas of prevention education and school violence, summarized the current priorities of the Student Services Team as shifting focus from intervention to prevention, promoting alternatives to suspension and expulsion, and strengthening programs for at-risk youth. Steve reminded the group that a "free and appropriate public education" for all youth is guaranteed in the state constitution, and the law requires school attendance from age 6 to 18 (raised from age 16 in 1987). The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act was recently reauthorized by Congress as the "No Child Left Behind" Act, giving schools more flexibility in use of federal funds, giving parents more of a say in school policies, and giving students the right to transfer out of "persistently dangerous" schools, among other provisions. In Wisconsin, notable recent influences on public schools include revenue caps; standardized testing for academic achievement in grades 3, 4, 8 and 10; and cuts in enrichment, extracurricular and alternative education programs. The remainder of the program was a question-and-answer exchange between Steve and TAC members. Question: What is the authority of school districts to discipline their students? Answer: Authority is broad. Wisconsin's schools have a high degree of autonomy compared to other states'. The DPI has almost no legal oversight of curriculum, no power to approve or mandate textbooks, and little control over local districts' policies and procedures. The legal guidelines for suspension only limit the number of days (generally 5 days, or up to 15 days for a student awaiting an expulsion hearing) that can be imposed. Expulsion criteria are broad, and expulsions may be appealed to the State Superintendent on procedural grounds only. A student in possession of a firearm must be expelled, per federal law for a minimum of one year in order to maintain federal funding. There are between 45 and 70 of these kinds of expulsions per year. Question: What right to an education does an expelled student have? Answer: Unless the student qualifies for special education, s/he forfeits her/his right to an education when expelled. By state law, no school district is required to serve a student who was expelled by another school district. However, an expelled student is still subject to the requirement for compulsory attendance. Parents must assure attendance through private school, home school, or another alternative program. Wisconsin law on home schooling requires only that the parent register with DPI that the student is receiving 875 hours of instruction per year in a variety of subjects, and the home schooling is not intended to circumvent the compulsory attendance laws. DPI sends the school notice of a youth being home-schooled. It is legal for a school district to "push out" a student to home schooling as an alternative to expulsion. Lynn Green and others noted that some schools place students in a category (sometimes called "administrative leave") in which the student is absent from school without consequences for an extended period of time. Steve was going to follow up on this sort of absenteeism. Discussion: expulsion and alternatives. Steve noted expulsions in Wisconsin tripled in the past 10 years, from 425 annually to over 1400. A 1996 DPI study group made a number of recommendations aimed at keeping more youth in school (for example, to require alternative education be provided to expelled students), but there was no support in the Legislature for any new requirements for schools. (This is the document that we will go over at the next meeting in Appleton.) A $5 million grant program to develop alternatives to suspension and expulsion was established. A DPI publication "Offering Educational Opportunities to Expelled Students in Wisconsin" http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/sspw/postexpul.html gives examples of creative programs instituted by some school districts, such as conditional reinstatement and ongoing services. Question: What are the rights of students and parents in an expulsion procedure (attorney, evidence, etc.)? Answer: Expulsion is not a court hearing, and concepts like the right to an attorney and cross-examination of witnesses really don't apply. The school board is ultimately responsible for the fairness of the process. Again, the expulsion procedure may be appealed to the State Superintendent. Question: Who should pay for education services when a youth is placed in a RCC? Answer: State aid to school districts is based on enrollment count on the third Friday in September each year. Students move between schools and districts throughout the year, but count is not adjusted. A school district may receive extra payment under the State Tuition program for youth placed in a "children's home" (for a purpose not related to education) which may include youth in detention. School districts must provide education programs to eligible youth in detention and jail. They can submit reimbursement plans to DPI to recover costs, based on availability of funding. Discussion: When a county pays the RCC's bill, it's also paying for educational costs provided in the on-site school program. Marty Bonk described a lawsuit in Calumet County where a parent challenged a court order to pay child support based on a RCC rate that includes education costs, which the parent contends should be provided at no charge. If the youth's IEP specifies education in a RCC, shouldn't the school cover those costs? Steve named Dan Wiltrout, PhD as another consultant at DPI who may be of assistance to counties and state agencies. Steve also shared numerous DPI documents, many of which are available for no charge. Most are available through the SS/PW Resources web site at http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/sspw/tadocs.html
V. Next Meeting Appleton will be the site of the next meeting, on September 12. Possible topics for the September 12 meeting are:
DOC/DJC/OMB/SH
|
