Attending:

Members - Reggie Bicha, Pierce County; Marty Bonk (for Ann Wondergem), Sheboygan County; Lynn Green, Dane County; Jerry Huber, LaCrosse County; Mary Jo Keating, Outagamie County; Brad Knapp (for Charmian Klyve), Rock County; Kathy Malone, Milwaukee County; Beverly Marten and Tom Schleitwiler, Jefferson County; Dave Sarow, Polk County (WJCIA); Jim Moeser, Silvia Jackson, Pam Eitland, and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC-DJC; and Kitty Kocol, Diane Waller and Mark Campbell, WI-DHFS.

Others - Sarah Diedrick, WI Counties Association;

The meeting got underway after members returned to the building following a 10:00 fire drill. The minutes of the April 30, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted.

1. Legislation. Jim Moeser explained the Department and Governor's Office were reviewing DJC's proposals to modify Ch. 938 (the proposals discussed at the September 12, 2002 TAC meeting). DJC is considering one additional proposal, first developed in the 01-03 legislative session as part of an omnibus bill on records privacy and access, 2001 AB 621 [http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2001/data/AB621-ASA2.pdf]. Most TAC members agreed with the general direction of increased access by county intake and disposition workers to law enforcement and court records, particularly the concept of CCAP access. Kitty Kocol and her staff will review the AB 621 language and analyze the implications in order to give additional feedback to DOC before the proposal goes forward. Jim will attempt to get additional feedback from the Office of State Courts and the Department of Justice.
    
2. Expulsion research. Led by Barry Neuman of Sheboygan County DHS, the work group will meet October 10 to review their research and explore the possibilities. Pam Eitland reported that DPI support, while central to the project, is not forthcoming at this point due to other agency priorities. There was a brief recap of why DPI turned down the proposed study, and the impact in terms of not having access to names of expelled students. TAC members offered perspectives on different approaches to studying the impact of expulsion. At its next meeting, the TAC will hear the work group's report and decide to either proceed with the study or leave it up to local efforts. In response to a question, Shelley Hagan noted that DPI is not advancing a proposal to change Ch. 121 in order to limit the ability of school districts to refuse to enroll a student expelled by another school. While some DPI staff had been supportive of such a change, it did not gain consensus at the administrative level.
    
3. Data collection and dissemination. Jim Moeser explained DJC's proposal to collect a limited number of key descriptive data bits from county agencies, then collate the data and publish them on the DJC Web site. The purpose would be to provide interesting, useful statewide juvenile justice information without requiring any new data collection from counties. Data could be used for inter-county comparisons, background for grant proposals, and, over time, trend analysis, among other purposes. Jim asked TAC members to suggest possible data elements. Descriptive data included: Referrals to intake (by age and sex), outcomes of referrals, disposition orders issued, caseload size and number of 72-hour holds. Outcome data, which probably would be Phase 2 rather than Phase 1 of the project, included: recidivism, restorative justice, accountability (electronic monitoring), and youth continuing/completing school. Jim asked Dave Sarow and WJCIA to help collect ideas for items that could be collected without additional effort by most counties. The overall goal should be to "tell the story" about how juvenile justice functions in Wisconsin, e.g. by describing the process at various key points.
    
4. Listening sessions. Silvia Jackson told the group that DJC plans to hold a series of listening sessions around the state in 2003 to begin a dialog on juvenile correctional services specifically and the juvenile justice system generally. Three areas we plan to use to focus discussion are:

• Services - What services and programs do our customers want DJC to provide?
• Relationships - At the state and local levels, how can we improve relationships between DJC and other stakeholders in juvenile justice and related areas?
• Future planning - What is our vision for juvenile corrections and juvenile justice in the next 3-4 years and beyond?

Based on feedback from the group, a fifth session will be planned for northern Wisconsin, in addition to the sessions already set in Madison (November 3), Eau Claire (November 7), Appleton (November 18) and Milwaukee (November 25). [Update: the fifth session is in Rhinelander on December 5.] Watch the mail for an invitation from Secretary Matt Frank will full details. Space will be limited, so persons are asked to pre-register if they wish to attend. Multiple attendees from one agency may be asked to select a smaller number of representatives in order to accommodate participants from other agencies/counties.

Jim Moeser introduced the agenda topic by saying that having well-trained staff working in the juvenile justice area is a benefit to all, and DJC wants to be an effective resource to provide and facilitate training when necessary. While there was an attempt to separate the group's discussion into training topics and training source(s), many comments linked the two areas.

Training topics:

There's a need for a training curriculum for juvenile justice staff that overlaps the child welfare "core" training but has additional/distinct juvenile justice components.

• Family assessment in juvenile justice, including how to consider issues regarding community safety and community-basing of services.
• Staff could use more information on the practice implications of ASFA in juvenile justice, for example in concurrent planning, TPR in delinquency cases, and independent living.
• Topical training -- some TAC members asserted this type of training is already available for juvenile justice staff, and DOC doesn't need to address it; while other TAC members wanted to see topical training such as in gender-specific programming, sex offender issues, collaborative approach to serving families, mental health, creative dispositions and culturally-specific programming.

Training facilitation:

Many TAC members expressed a desire to see the Training Partnerships develop and deliver a modified "core" curriculum designed for juvenile justice staff. While there may be less of an audience for this training compared to child welfare core (as there seems to be less turnover in juvenile justice staff), it still would be helpful to agencies, and cost-effective in light of counties' current investment in the Partnerships.

• Distance learning technology could help to deliver training in a time-efficient manner, e.g., through the statewide telecommunications capacity at the UW-Extension (Pyle Center).
• WJCIA has worked with DOC in the past to facilitate the development and delivery of topical training for juvenile court intake and disposition staff, at a reasonable price. The organization is willing to continue in this joint effort.
• DOC has limited funding - possibly $15,000 this state fiscal year and $20,000 annually - that it could invest in county/joint juvenile justice training, such as for curriculum development and partial support of training costs. Could this be pooled with other resources to expand its impact?

Several persons noted feedback they had received from individual Partnership agencies and from the Partnership Council as to whether the Partnerships are interested in developing juvenile justice training components, and the extent to which such components would be reimbursable under the current IV-E rules.

Next steps: DJC will consider the feedback received from the TAC and go forward in developing a proposal for juvenile justice training.

Note: During this part of the meeting, Cindy O'Donnell, Deputy Secretary of DOC, presented Silvia Jackson with a commendation signed by Governor Doyle, recognizing Silvia's 25 years of service in State government.

Kerrie Bischoff gave a brief report on the Office of Justice Assistance, the Governor's Juvenile Justice Commission, and the status of federal juvenile justice grant funds coming into Wisconsin. The Commission has 20 members now and may add as many as 10 or 12 more by the end of the year, including youth members and adults who have involvement in the JJ system as parents or volunteers. The three-year Juvenile Justice State Plan was approved by the Commission and will be available on line or in hard copy. Significant cuts in federal grant amounts mean that there will be little if any resources for new program initiatives; most funding under the formula grants will be to continue current efforts. Additional resources will be available as well, including a coordinator at OJA for the Disproportionate Minority Confinement effort and some $60,000 in DMC-related training funds. At the federal level, there may be as much as $1.2 million available in Fall 2004 through the new discretionary Delinquency Prevention Block Grant program. Changes to the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (formerly JAIBG) program have made the program more flexible and permitted JABG funds to be used for more front-end services. However, federal funds for JABG will see a 20 to 30% reduction in FFY 03, and possibly no funding in FFY 04. OJA will send notification to jurisdictions around October 15 regarding their FFY 03 allocation (if a "direct" grantee) or how to apply for a portion of the unallocated JABG funds (if a smaller "non-direct" jurisdiction), along with a federal update if available.

The next TAC meeting will be Thursday, December 11, 2003, from 10:00 am to 12:30 pm in Madison.