Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC)
 

Attending:

Members - Reggie Bicha, Pierce County; John Chrest, Wood County; Jerry Huber, LaCrosse County; Cheryl Huenink, Dunn County; Mary Jo Keating, Outagamie County; Charmian Klyve, Rock County; Kathy Malone, Milwaukee County; Beverly Marten, Jefferson County; Dave Sarow, Polk County; Silvia Jackson, Elaine Olson, Kris Krenke, Pam Eitland, and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC-DJC; and Mark Campbell, WI-DHFS. Others - Ruth Deihl, Grace Cudny, Scott Tews and John Tuohy, WI-DHFS; Steve Fernan, WI-DPI; Ernie Messinger, Waukesha County; Sarah Diedrick, WI Counties Association; Mark Wehrly, WI Council on Children and Families

The minutes of the September 12 meeting were approved as submitted.

Silvia Jackson welcomed new TAC member Cheryl Huenink, Dunn County DHS director, and congratulated TAC member Lynn Green on her appointment as Dane County HSD director.

Shelley Hagan reported that the Department's statutory language proposal has not been sent to the Legislative Reference Bureau yet for drafting. A copy of the draft language will be made available to TAC members as soon as it is completed.

Ruth Diehl, supervisor of the HSRS Unit in DHFS, briefly summarized the status of Human Services Reporting System (HSRS) data requirements for delinquency-related services and clients. According to Ruth, as counties join the WiSACWIS data system for reporting child welfare and out-of-home placement case data, they are no longer required to report their out-of-home placement data in the HSRS Children in Substitute Care module. Eventually, WiSACWIS will likely replace county HSRS core reporting on CHIPS/CAN clients. However, data on clients in the delinquent/JIPS target group is still reported in the HSRS core module, and the issue is whether HSRS core reporting should continue for the delinquent population. Counties will continue to report expenditures for all target groups, even CHIPS/CAN, even after WiSACWIS is implemented.

Silvia Jackson asked the TAC whether certain state-level HSRS data, such as annual county spending on delinquent/JIPS clients, is still necessary to collect. Several TAC members, including John Chrest, Mary Jo Keating and Cheryl Huenink, saw it as necessary to continue collecting statewide data on youth, services and expenditures to inform state agency and legislative decision-making. Silvia Jackson agreed that from the DJC perspective, having statewide data (e.g., the gap between Youth Aids and total county expenditures) is useful to DJC and external agencies. She then asked for advice on how the state should continue to collect such data. Options included continuing to use HSRS, expanding the scope of WiSACWIS or developing other reporting mechanisms. There were differing opinions, related to each county's perception of its current fiscal and client data systems, and the extent to which the county's systems were separate from or integrated into state data systems. Reggie Bicha saw the additional data provided by WiSACWIS as being helpful to his agency, while John Chrest was concerned about redundant reporting between his county's internal systems and WiSACWIS. Kathy Malone noted that Milwaukee County DHS is satisfied with its internal data systems for tracking costs and outcomes of juvenile justice services; and, the county is not scheduled for WiSACWIS implementation for juvenile justice placements.

Ruth Diehl responded to questions about the future of HSRS by saying the system would remain in place for long-term care and disability target populations, although Jerry Huber noted that LaCrosse and the other counties piloting the Family Care program will cease reporting client data on HSRS next year. Jerry asked whether counties could just produce a standard report (e.g., juvenile justice total expenditures) out of their internal data systems, instead of maintaining a state-imposed data collection system. Ernie Messinger suggested the state Department of Electronic Government should play a role in deciding between the state and counties what data will be collected and how it will be made available (e.g., via a Web-based "data mart") to interested persons for analysis. Ruth noted DHFS is trying to expand the use of electronic file transfer as a way of collecting data directly from counties' internal information systems.

Discussion turned to the availability and need for funding/resources for data collection. Silvia Jackson explained that DOC has no funds in its budget to support the cost of implementing or expanding a juvenile justice data collection system. Juvenile justice clients represent about 6% of HSRS currently, according to Ruth Diehl, and HSRS is a continuing item in the DHFS budget. (Two divisions, DCFS and DSL, support the information systems bureau costs of HSRS, while DSL supports the HSRS analysis unit.) In the future, if DCFS ceases its support of HSRS costs, there could be a need for additional resources to maintain and update the HSRS automated system. [Note: Of the current total HSRS maintenance budget, 6% is equal to about $50-60,000.]

WiSACWIS could be expanded to include client reporting for all juvenile justice program services, not just placements, but such expansion would be costly and would not qualify for federal IV-E funds. WiSACWIS can be used to track juvenile cases when they are not in placement, and some counties have entered juvenile cases, but the system is not currently designed to collect data on non-placement juvenile cases For example, juvenile justice documents are templates rather than WiSACWIS screens, so no data is collected. Mark Campbell agreed with Ernie Messinger's statement that there was no money at the state level to expand WiSACWIS to include all juvenile justice cases.

John Chrest moved that the state continue to collect meaningful statewide data from counties regarding youth receiving delinquency-related services, keeping the existing HSRS process and permitting counties to download their own data into it. He further moved the state should continue to study the possibility of an integrated county human services data system that uses technology to cross state agency lines and reduce fragmentation and duplication of reporting. Mary Jo Keating seconded the motion, which was approved by the TAC on a voice vote with two dissentions. Reggie Bicha said his reason for voting "No" was his concern that the issue would not be brought back to the TAC at a specific time in the future. Silvia Jackson replied that the issue would be put on a TAC agenda in late spring or early summer 2003. Jerry Huber explained his "No" vote by saying he would prefer that the state not mandate any particular data system for counties. Instead, the state should just specify the data elements it wants reported, and counties can produce data from their own internal data systems.

As a follow-up, DOC will prepare a letter to Secretary Phyllis Dubč on behalf of the TAC asking that HSRS data collection on the juvenile justice target group continue until such time as the state and counties would propose a viable, cost-effective alternative method of data collection.

Steve Fernan updated the TAC on issues from the previous meeting. DPI is working on a proposal to fund an individual case record system for the School Performance Report, beginning in the 04-05 school year. The individual records would initially include enrollment, attendance, drop out, and graduation information on each student, while discipline records would come later. Currently, the performance data is reported on an aggregate basis only, including some demographic information but not case records. The current SPR does collect, in aggregate, the reasons for school disciplinary actions (suspension and expulsion) and whether an expelled youth returned to the school that expelled him/her. Steve also explained that state aid for schools related to numbers of students is determined based on an average of two counts of enrolled students, one count taken the 3^rd Friday in September and the other taken the 2^nd Friday in January. Based on this average, the state aid for the following school year (paid on a quarterly basis) is determined.

Discussion moved to the expulsion study proposal. Steve responded to a question that had been raised at a study subcommittee meeting on October 11, regarding the legal ability of school boards to release names of expelled youth. According to DPI legal counsel, s. 118.125 (2) (g) 2. allows DPI to require the release of pupil records. Thus, for the study to proceed, a request should be submitted to the State Superintendent for her to compel selected school districts to release the needed names and other identifying information. The group discussed various ways to select a sample of schools, including: pick a representative sample of all schools that expelled youth in the target year, then weight the sample according to proportion of expulsions in each school; focus on the schools that expel the largest number of youth; and select schools that provide post-expulsion services along with those that do not. A subcommittee will develop a study proposal (Charmian Klyve, John Chrest, Bev Marten, Mary Jo Keating, Pam Eitland, Shelley Hagan) to discuss with DPI. It is possible that the several state agencies could collaborate on an application to the Office of Justice Assistance for Challenge Activity funding to pay for part of the study, as school attendance/truancy is a major focus in 2003 for the Governor's Juvenile Justice Commission, which awards Challenge Activity funds.

Other proposals were brought up. Charmian Klyve related that the expulsion study proposal was discussed at a meeting of WCHSA Southern Region directors, who supported the study but wanted to see additional proposals pursued while the study was in progress. Interest centered on the idea of requiring the school district that a youth left, e.g. through expulsion or via placement in a residential care center, to pay that youth's portion of the school's state aid toward the cost of the youth's services or placement. Steve noted the aid formula would have to be changed to implement such a proposal. Charmian asked if the TAC could go on record as supporting the idea of state school aid following an out-of-school youth to pay for services. Silvia Jackson noted this would represent a major change in state policy, and it was unclear whether any state agency other than DPI could propose such a change as part of the biennial budget. No action was taken on the proposal.

The next TAC meeting will be Friday, February 14, from 10:30 am to 1:00 pm in Madison. Agenda topics will include follow-up on the expulsion study as well as other items identified by TAC members.

DOC/DJC/OMB/SH