Attending:

Reggie Bicha, Pierce County; John Chrest, Wood County; Ted East, Rusk County; Charity Eleson, Dane County; Jerry Huber, LaCrosse County; Mary Jo Keating, Outagamie County; Charmian Klyve, Rock County; Kathy Malone, Milwaukee County; Tom Schleitwiler, Jefferson County; Ann Wondergem, Sheboygan County; Secretary Jon Litscher, Eurial Jordan, Silvia Jackson, Paul Westerhaus, Elaine Olson, Kris Krenke, Pam Eitland, Cari Todahl and Shelley Hagan, WI-DOC; and Mark Campbell and Diane Waller, WI-DHFS.

Secretary Litscher prefaced his remarks by noting both DOC and counties are in the business of serving youth. Counties' service to youth is in a broad context; while DOC's services are more narrowly focused, they cannot be delivered in isolation.

Litscher's charge to the committee was to be a forum for developing and expressing a consensus on how best to serve Wisconsin youth. Based on this common understanding, the committee can develop and promote a common agenda in areas such as legislation, training, and funding.

According to the Secretary, juvenile corrections is facing challenges due to lower-than-budgeted populations in state institutions. From a public policy viewpoint, lower populations are good news, because they result from effective local efforts to prevent juvenile crime and serve youth in their home communities. But there is a recognized need to sustain DOC institutions for youth who need to be in a secure setting due to public safety and security considerations. Faced with revenue shortfalls from declining populations, as well as the State budget cutbacks, the Division's male institutions have seen reductions in staff, including layoffs. The Secretary suggested the juvenile institutions may be at a more "realistic" size now. DJC is not anticipating the need to make additional deep cuts in the future. But if they become necessary, they'll be made in consultation with our stakeholders.

The Department of Corrections as a whole is facing challenges as well, with possibly more to come. State budget cutbacks, if/when they occur, will affect us all, state and county agencies. In this context, we still will try to be as responsive as possible to the concerns of our partners.

Questions from counties at the end of Secretary Litscher's presentation focused on various aspects of the state-county relationship, and the ongoing role for DOC in providing leadership on policy and practices. Litscher charged the group with bringing items to the table and developing recommendations for Department action. Ultimately, DOC's ability to act on recommendations will depend on available resources, as well as the concurrence of DHFS in areas of policy overlap. However, the Department has a statutory responsibility for delinquency and juvenile justice matters statewide, that goes beyond the operation of correctional programs and facilities.

II. Legislation

Corrections: Shelley Hagan explained the Department asked to have a legislative proposal drafted so as to re-introduce several items that were removed from the budget bill by the Joint Committee on Finance. These were: extension of the three-year incarceration limit for Serious Juvenile Offenders; and elimination of unconstitutional language on transfer of certain youth from juvenile to adult correctional programs. In addition to these items, two more changes were proposed in the draft: clarification that correctional orders (i.e., not Extended Jurisdiction or Serious Juvenile Offender) expire at age 18; and a requirement for TPR notification to parents when a youth is removed from home via a delinquency order. There was discussion of the provision on termination of orders, with committee members voicing different opinions on how the language should be clarified, while agreeing that clarification would lead to more consistent interpretation by courts. A number of county representatives, such as Reggie Bicha, felt that some youth would benefit from having their orders extend beyond their 18^th birthday, while others were concerned over possible higher costs for longer periods of supervision or placement. It was agreed that DOC would distribute the draft to committee members, who could review it, and share it with other interested groups (WCHSA, WJCIA) for comment. To be considered by DOC, comments should be received by December 15.

ASFA: Pam Eitland noted the Department is reviewing a list of possible changes to Ch. 48, drafted by DHFS, related to compliance with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), to determine which might be appropriate for inclusion in Ch. 938. A discussion followed regarding both the content and process for changing state statutes to comply with ASFA. There was disagreement over the extent to which ASFA regulations and time lines applied to certain juvenile court actions, and concern over the inconsistent application of state law vs. the perceived requirements of ASFA on the part of courts. Mary Jo Keating and John Chrest, among others, strongly requested county involvement in the development of possible statutory language changes, rather than being limited to a review role once changes have been drafted. Chrest cited the COPE Committee model as having been effective in collaborative state-county policy development.

Other areas: Suggestions from the committee for discussion at future meetings:

1. Possible legislation to allow contracting for after-hours custody intake.
2. Implications of the Omnibus Privacy bill.
3. Reinstating the requirement that Youth Aids be increased when state charges go up.
4. More options for sanctioning Type 2 youth at the county level, in addition to transferring youth to a JCI for up to 10 days.

Intake: An update on intake worker training led to a discussion of how to make training on juvenile justice law available to county workers (not just those being trained as intake workers) and staff of contract agencies. Cari Todahl of the DOC Training Center will follow up to explore what can be offered in 2002. [Done] Mary Jo Keating asked that the WI Juvenile Court Intake Association be invited to have a representative on the TAC. [Done]

Post-release planning: The Division plans to offer training to its field services staff on ASFA requirements as they apply to youth released from juvenile correctional institutions. County agencies will be invited to participate in the training sessions. The Division would like to pilot the use of interactive satellite broadcast to deliver the training. Although there were some concerns about the technology involved, the TAC agreed it would be a useful experiment, and asked the Division to proceed. Mary Jo Keating volunteered to review the curriculum. Ann Wondergem asked that an outline of the curriculum be included in the training announcement so agencies could decide which staff were appropriate to send.

Partnerships: Mark Campbell told the group that Wisconsin has applied to be part of a three-state pilot to develop ASFA compliance training, with technical assistance to be provided by the Muskie School of Social Work at Southern Maine University. The training would combine standard elements with state-specific information and concerns. [Note: The Wisconsin Partnerships were selected to receive the Muskie School pilot training. Delinquency issues will need to be added to the curriculum, as the area of delinquency was not part of the original grant solicitation.] The ultimate goal is to have ASFA standards integrated into the child welfare training curriculum offered by the Wisconsin Partnerships. Various members of the group voiced their support for the inclusion of delinquency-focused training into the Partnerships' curricula and mission. John Chrest pointed out the eligibility for federal IV-E reimbursement for delinquency-focused training could be an issue. Charmian Klyve, among others, discussed the need to find the common ground between child welfare and juvenile justice philosophies. Reggie Bicha's view was that out of 18 days of Partnership "core" training, 17 days applied both to child welfare and juvenile justice case work.

In the short time left, TAC members gave their ideas for future topics to be addressed by the group. These included: