Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC)
 

Attending:

Members - John Chrest, Wood County; Mary Jo Keating, Outagamie County; Kathy Malone, Milwaukee County; Dave Sarow, Polk County; Ann Wondergem, Sheboygan County; Silvia Jackson, Elaine Olson, Kris Krenke, Pam Eitland, and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC-DJC; and Diane Waller and Mark Campbell, WI-DHFS. Others - Steve Fernan, WI-DPI; Mark Wehrly, WI Council on Children and Families

The minutes of the June 21 meeting were approved as submitted.

Steve Fernan briefly summarized the compulsory school attendance laws and reminded the group of the strong history in Wisconsin of local school boards' control of education. He noted the dramatic rise in expulsions in the state since DPI began collecting this data. In the 1992-93 school year, schools reported about 450 expulsions, rising to 900 in the 95-96 school year and 1400 in 00-01. While the number seems to have leveled off, it is still significantly higher than in the past, due in part to more stringent behavioral expectations ("zero tolerance"). The provision permitting a school board to not accept a student who has been expelled by another district has made it harder for expelled students to continue their education.

Steve reviewed the recommendations of the State Superintendent's 1996 Expulsion Task Force, focusing on those that had been implemented or that had the best chance of finding support in the future. In terms of the prevention recommendations, DPI significantly increased its technical assistance resources for schools by hiring a full-time consultant on suspension and expulsion issues and developing several publications on best practices and pertinent laws. (For example, a publication on educational options for expelled students http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/sspw/postexpul.html, a "tool kit" on classroom behavior management http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/sspw/classman.html and legal resources for safe schools.)

Steve explained that the federal Department of Education had turned over funding and administration of the "21^st Century Community Learning Centers" program to the states. Wisconsin has moved quickly to begin awarding the 5-year grants to applicants (public school districts, private schools and/or community-based organizations) in both urban and rural areas. Grants are targeted to schools with a high concentration of youth in poverty and those which are identified as needing improvement due to lower scores on standardized tests. Funding for the program will likely be maintained and possibly grow over time, as it's popular with Congress. In the current funding cycle, $4 million was allocated; $7 million and $17 million are slated for the next two funding cycles. Funding helps provide after-school services with an emphasis on academic tutoring but also including recreational and youth development activities. Counties may wish to partner with local schools and/or agencies to develop programs for Year 2 application process.

Other recommendations Steve mentioned as having potential were providing more educational options for youth under age 16, such as charter schools and on-line education; sustaining and expanding the alternative school grant program; increasing the funding for the state tuition reimbursement program; and providing training on sharing information across systems. He summarized possible directions as follows:

1. Provide joint in-service training for schools, courts, police and county agencies using the "Sharing Information Across Systems" document.
2. Put limits in statute on schools' ability to expel youth or imposing conditions on expulsions, such as a requirement to develop a post-expulsion services plan.
3. Expand the availability of alternative schools serving at-risk and expelled youth, through increased funding and more use of charter schools.
4. Increase the appropriation for the state tuition reimbursement program.
5. Actively encourage county agencies and other local groups to partner with qualifying schools/districts in applying for Community Learning Centers funding.

There was an extensive discussion of the idea of studying the outcome of expulsion for a sample of Wisconsin youth/young adults as a way of providing support for specific policy changes related to expelled youth. TAC members felt such a study could provide valuable insight into the effects of expulsion on youth, and guidance on whether certain policies or interventions had a positive impact on youth outcomes. Study results would then form the basis of public policy recommendations, e.g. to the Legislature and school boards, on expulsion. A study similar to Mark Courtney's study of youth aging out of the foster care system was envisaged.

Mary Jo Keating made a motion, seconded by Ann Wondergem, that the TAC support state agencies' collaboration on a 5-year follow-up study of youth expelled from Wisconsin public schools, to include youths' status 5 years after expulsion and the services/interventions the youths received during the 5 year period. The group discussed possible parameters for the study, including the question of whether it should include youth who separated from school through a "voluntary withdrawal" or "administrative leave" - called the "push-out" group for short. It was agreed the possibility of these youth being included should be discussed with potential researchers, but expelled youth would be the first priority.

Until the study can be completed, the group agreed to pursue other possible changes to improve the educational opportunities for delinquent youth. TAC members agreed when Elaine Olson suggested that we support modification of the provision allowing any school board to refuse to accept a pupil expelled by another school. Steve asked the TAC to express its views via a letter to Superintendent Burmaster. The state tuition reimbursement program will receive further discussion at the next TAC meeting, based on information to be provided by Steve on what proportion of current requests can be funded by the appropriation.

Shelley Hagan presented a summary of the Division's proposed statutory language changes for the 2003 legislative session. (Attached) After discussion, the TAC recommended to DJC to remove item #3, which proposed permitting runaway non-delinquent youth from other states to be held in secure detention until they could be transported back home. Silvia Jackson agreed with the recommendation, and will remove the secure detention language from DJC's proposal.

Silvia introduced the topic of the SFY 03-05 budget by saying the DOC budget request will be submitted to the state Department of Administration by October 1. DOA will only accept a cost-to-continue budget, meaning any new initiatives will be proposed by the Governor and not by state agencies. Secretary Litscher will advocate with the Governor for a Youth Aids increase to counties, in order to compensate for state rate increases and to assist with community-based programs costs. If funding is to be allocated for Youth Aids, DJC wants TAC input into how it should be distributed, as well as support from county representatives such as WCA for the proposal in the Legislature.

Shelley gave a brief history of Youth Aids (attached) and reviewed four illustrations of hypothetical Youth Aids allocation formulas that use different priorities to distribute $3 million among counties. The four formulas ranged from a simple percent increase applied to the county's Youth Aids base, the two statutory three-factor formulas, and a distribution based on counties' costs for JCI services.

On the topic of Youth Aids allocation, John Chrest reminded the TAC that every proposal has winners and losers, and that WCHSA has taken the position in the past that new Youth Aids funding should be used to address past discrepancies/inequality. TAC members expressed a range of views on the purpose of Youth Aids and where increases should go. Dave Sarow suggested that Youth Aids may have outlived its usefulness, while other TAC members supported the concept of ongoing state-county cost-sharing for youth correctional services. Ann Wondergem thought a Youth Aids increase for community services was particularly important, in recognition of the fact that the vast majority of delinquent youth are served in non-correctional settings. John agreed, saying if new Youth Aids funding is weighted towards state charges, it doesn't reward counties that develop effective alternatives to incarceration. Mark Wehrly (WCCF) said that in principle, WCCF supports a formula that rewards keeping youth in the community. However, he was uncomfortable that the three-factor formula put a few counties, including Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha, at a disadvantage in comparison to other formulas.

Kathy Malone gave her view that there was no "best" formula for Milwaukee County, given the large gap between costs and Youth Aids and the current county budget reductions. She thought a fair compromise for all counties lay somewhere between the first option (percent of base) and third option (3-factor with JCI override). Dave and Mary Jo both thought the fourth option (JCI costs) was the least preferable. Dave proposed a combination of a 3-factor formula and a statewide "catastrophic" fund for counties with very high state charges. Mary Jo mentioned the WCHSA proposal from the previous legislative session, to create a Youth Aids funding source for community-based services, equivalent to 20% of county out-of-home placement costs. Shelley thought the discussion suggested an approach that used the first option (percent of base) to allocate funds for community services, and the third option (3-factor with override) to allocate funds for higher state charges.

TAC members agreed the juvenile justice data topic, including HSRS, would be first on the agenda for the next meeting, which will be Friday, November 1, from 9:30 to 12:00, in Madison at DOC headquarters. Other topics will include a follow-up discussion on education issues and the expulsion study design.

DOC/DJC/OMB/SH