PBWG Minutes3 12 10

							                          MINUTES
       YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY PLANNING TASK FORCE (YAPTF)
          PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS WORK GROUP MEETING
                         RALEIGH, NC
                        MARCH 12, 2010

The Programs and Benefits Work Group of the Youth Accountability Planning Task
Force met on Thursday, March 12, 2010, at the North Carolina Judicial Center in
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Task Force Members Present: Sen. Ed Jones (Co-Chair, North Carolina Senate), Rep.
Sandra Spaulding-Hughes (Co-Chair, House of Representatives), Al Deitch (Department
of Administration (DOA)), Maxine Evans-Armwood (Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP)), Secretary Linda Hayes (DJJDP), Sandra Reid
(Governor’s Crime Commission), Deputy Secretary Maria Spaulding (Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS)).

Other Members Present: Stephanie Nantz (Co-Facilitator, DOA/Youth Advocacy and
Involvement Office), Sandy Pearce (Co-Facilitator, Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC)), Mandy Ableidinger (for Brandy Bynum, Action for Children), Major Charles
Blackwood (Orange County Sheriff’s Office), Sonya Brown (DHHS), Karen Calhoun
(North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission (NCSPAC)), Arnold
Dennis (North Carolina Central University/Juvenile Justice Institute), Honorable Mark
Galloway (Chief District Court Judge), Catherine Goldsmith (DHHS/Division of Medical
Assistance), Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell (Criminologist), Dr. Steve Moody
(Department of Correction (DOC)/Division of Prisons (DOP)), Teresa Price (DJJDP), Jon
Powell (Campbell University School of Law/Juvenile Justice Mediation Program), Susan
Richardson (Kate B. Reynolds Trust/North Carolina Contact for Reclaiming Futures
Initiative), Mike Rieder (DJJDP), Cindy Williamson (Department of Public Instruction
(DPI)).

Guests: Mike Bryant (DJJDP), Kathy Dudley (DJJDP), Dr. Robin Jenkins (DJJDP),
Susan Katzenelson (NCSPAC) Gary Kearney (DJJDP), David Lagos (NCSPAC), Billy
Lassiter (DJJDP), Dr. Martin Pharr (DJJDP), Susan Sitze (General Assembly/Research
Division), Kim Wilson (Governor’s Crime Commission).

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
        Rep. Spaulding-Hughes, Co-Chair of the Programs and Benefits Work Group,
convened the meeting at 10:10 a.m. After welcoming all of those present, she introduced
a new member of the Work Group, Catherine Goldsmith with DHHS/Division of Medical
Assistance. Rep. Spaulding-Hughes then reviewed the agenda before recognizing Sandy
Pearce.

REVISED WORK PLAN/MEETING SCHEDULE
      Ms. Pearce reminded members of the revised work plan that had been emailed to
them prior to this meeting. She advised that the only change to the document involved
1
updates to the Work Group’s meeting schedule. After the April Work Group meeting,
Ms. Pearce noted that the remainder of the Work Group’s meetings on May 6, July 19,
and September 20 will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. Work Group members
were encouraged to attend, if possible, upcoming Task Force meetings which are set for
April 22, June 11, August 20, and October 15.

        Ms. Pearce then directed members to a handout from DJJDP which offered a
more detailed description of Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) programs, a topic
that had been discussed at the last Work Group meeting.

DJJDP CURRENT PRACTICES, PLANNED PRACTICES, FUTURE
DIRECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
        Rep. Spaulding-Hughes recognized three of DJJDP’s Deputy Secretaries, Mike
Rieder, Kathy Dudley, and Dr. Martin Pharr, to present information on the Department’s
court, facility, and treatment services. (See two power point presentations.)

Court Services
        Deputy Secretary Mike Rieder began his remarks by noting that the juvenile court
operates somewhat differently in each judicial district predominantly due to the
geographic, resource, policy, and court personnel variations within the State. Al Deitch
noted that there are also similarities between court counselor offices, such as salary and
statewide standards that can be dictated by Secretary Linda Hayes. Mr. Rieder agreed
and stated that DJJDP has standardized procedures in place across the State and added
that the Department is fortunate to have a database system (i.e., North Carolina Juvenile
Online Information Network--NC-JOIN) that contains valuable information on all
juveniles in NC who have juvenile court involvement.

        Mr. Rieder continued by saying that district court judges who preside over
juvenile court are the most important stakeholders within the juvenile justice system and
that collaboration between judges and the court counseling staff is crucial. Sen. Ed Jones
inquired about the role of the chief district court judge. Judge Mark Galloway, who is
himself a Chief District Court Judge in District 9-A, indicated two primary roles which
included dealing with major differences in perspectives between juvenile court players,
and assigning different judges to manage juvenile court proceedings. Ms. Pearce added
that there are statutory limitations placed on what district court judges can do and that
judges do not have to be certified through coursework at UNC-CH/School of
Government to hold juvenile court.

         In discussing the court counselors, Mr. Rieder stated that the chief court counselor
in each district is responsible for the supervision of staff and the operation of the office,
as well as interfacing with other agencies and entities in the community. Therefore, it is
important for the chief court counselor to provide strong leadership and to have the
ability to “wear a lot of different hats.” According to Mr. Rieder, court counselors have
different roles depending on where a juvenile is within the juvenile justice system. Mr.
Rieder related that the intake component in the juvenile system is one of the major
differences between the juvenile and adult justice systems. Since the adult system does
2
not have a mandated intake process, there is no opportunity to assess offenders through
the gathering of information in order to divert some offenders from court and possibly
into a community-based program.

        Mr. Rieder then discussed the current needs of court services, one of which
included increasing community-based programming. He noted that, during the last
Legislative Session, the DDJDP lost total funding for some of its community-based
programs (e.g., Save Our Schools (SOS), One-on-One) and that other programs suffered
fiscal cuts (e.g., Wilderness Camp, multi-purpose group homes). Secretary Hayes
expounded upon this by stating that it is too early to tell the full impact of the programs
that were forced to close or to reduce services. She added that the Governor’s Crime
Commission (GCC) may have some of their grant requests coming from these eliminated
programs. Sandra Reid, Chair of the GCC’s Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, replied that
all of the grant requests that have been received by the GCC (totaling $17 million) far
outweigh the amount of grant funds that the Commission has to award ($2 million).

        Mr. Rieder turned his attention to the needs that DJJDP court services would
require if the juvenile jurisdiction was expanded to include 16 and 17 year olds.
Members were told that these needs would encompass the following: additional
(approximately 500) staff, risk management, staff training on the needs of the new
population, additional appropriate community-based programs (e.g., vocational skills),
increased office space, and more equipment (e.g., computers, cars).
        Work Group members discussed issues to consider if 16 and 17 year olds are
moved to the juvenile system. Mr. Deitch voiced a concern about the safety of court
counselors making home visits to these older youth who would be added to their
caseloads. Mr. Dennis pointed out that, when compared to younger juveniles, 16 and 17
year olds would be more mobile and that more of this group might have jobs. Susan
Sitze reminded the group that because of expanded jurisdiction, some of this age group
could be under the supervision of the juvenile court well past the age of 17 years old,
possibly up to the age of 20. Secretary Hayes noted that the DJJDP is already working
with some 16 and 17 year olds. However, the proposed age change would result in an
influx of 16 and 17 year olds which would create challenges that the Department is
studying, such as the differences between the younger youth and the 16 and 17 year old
group and what services that these different age groups would need. Mr. Rieder indicated
that the court counselors could not be expected to make the same level of contact with
and provide services to offenders without additional funding to expand staff and services.
Mr. Deitch speculated as to whether DOC staff presently working with 16 and 17 year
old offenders could be transferred to the DJJDP. Mr. Reider responded that the
Department could not count on this and noted that the DOC staff would have different
perspectives and training that would be slanted to the adult criminal justice system.
Susan Katzenelson suggested that the group might want to look at other states that are
already working with older youths to determine what types of programs are being used
that have been proven to be effective with this age group.

      With regard to court counselor caseloads, Karen Calhoun inquired about the
number of juveniles presently under the supervision of the juvenile court and the average
3
number of offenders on a caseload. Mr. Rieder answered that approximately 7,500
juveniles are under court supervision, with most caseloads averaging 25-30 offenders.
Sandy Pearce asked what bearing the risk and needs instrument (completed by intake
counselors on all cases) had on the court counselor’s recommendations and the final court
order. Maxine Evans-Armwood explained that the risk portion of the tool is primarily
used by court counselors to make a decision about whether a juvenile should be diverted
from or referred to court, while information from the needs component is used to
formulate recommendations on juveniles for the judge’s consideration during the
dispositional hearing. When questioned by Ms. Pearce about how often judges follow
these recommendations, Ms. Evans-Armwood indicated that it varied.

        Senator Jones inquired as to what was expected of parents by the juvenile court.
Ms. Evans-Armwood advised that a judge could impose certain conditions on the
juvenile’s parents, such as providing transportation for their child to court-ordered
services. From her work experience, Ms. Evans-Armwood stated that there was a
definite need for more parenting classes to assist parents in dealing more effectively and
appropriately with their children. Rep. Spaulding-Hughes affirmed this need and related
that she was aware of the success of parent education classes in her county. Major
Blackwood noted the importance of the juvenile court’s ability to exercise control over
parents, something that does not occur with 16 and 17 year olds who are in adult court.
When asked about what is the court’s response when parents of juveniles are non-
compliant, Ms. Evans-Armwood stated that the court counselors put a lot of effort into
getting “buy-in” from parents. Judge Galloway advised that a judge can find parents in
contempt and order them to serve 30 days in jail. Ms. Evans-Armwood interjected that
incarcerating parents can cause significant complications when they are employed.
Secretary Hayes agreed and stated that the court’s finding of contempt by parents is
generally a last resort of the court. Karen Calhoun suggested that this Work Group may
want to recommend that the Legal Work Group review the current statutes governing
parental responsibility.

Facility Services

Detention Facilities
       At this point, Kathy Dudley, Deputy Secretary of DJJDP Facility Operations, and
Dr. Martin Pharr, Deputy Secretary of Clinical and Educational Service began an
overview of DJJDP facilities and their related services (see handout). Ms. Dudley started
her presentation with a description of detention centers in the State. Detention centers
provide secure custody of juveniles as they await their adjudication and/or disposition
hearings, or as a condition of probation. Additionally, juvenile who have absconded from
other states can be detained, pending their return through Interstate Compact.
Furthermore, one of the State’s detention centers is reserved for juvenile offenders who
remain in a juvenile facility (until age 16) after being bound over to Superior Court and
are awaiting trial. Ms. Dudley stated that federal regulations dictate that adult and
juvenile offenders be confined in such a manner that there is no sight or sound contact
while they are in custody. Al Deitch inquired if there was any jail in North Carolina that
had a separate area for juveniles. Ms. Dudley indicated that she was unaware of any jail
4
that had separate housing for juveniles.

         There are a total of 12 detention centers, nine of which are regional and three
that are county-operated. Ms. Pearce asked about the number of detention beds in the
State. Michael Bryant, DJJDP Detention Administrator, answered that there are 193 beds
in the regional facilities, and 78 beds in the county facilities, for a total of 271 beds. A
question arose of whether the number of beds was adequate for the number of juveniles
who were detained. Ms. Dudley indicated that there was enough beds, but noted that the
location of beds was often a problem since juveniles sometimes had to be transported a
long distance if a detention center in the vicinity did not have any vacancies. She
continued by saying that this travel results in the time of two staff persons (if law
enforcement does not transport), as well as the costs associated with transporting. Mr.
Deitch posed a question regarding the number of detention beds that were used for
undisciplined youth. Mr. Bryant advised that the vast majority of beds were utilized for
delinquent juveniles. Ms. Dudley added that undisciplined youth are housed in detention
centers on a very short-term basis and are generally released within 24 hours. Mandy
Ableidinger asked about the average length of a juvenile’s stay in detention, to which Mr.
Bryant answered approximately 12 days. Ms. Dudley noted that the cost of detaining a
juvenile is $89.00 per day. Responding to a question by Ms. Pearce about the number of
juveniles confined per room, Ms. Dudley responded that there is double-bunking when
the detention centers are full, but added that there is usually only one juvenile per room.

        Ms. Dudley went on to state that all detention center employees must undergo
training through the Criminal Justice Standards Commission to become certified. Ms.
Pearce inquired about the detention staff ratio to juveniles. Mr. Bryant responded that the
ratio was eight staff to one juvenile. Ms. Dudley also described services that are present
in all of the detention centers which include: education, mental health screenings,
physical health screening, recreation, chaplaincy services, psycho-educational groups,
and substance abuse services. With regard to the therapeutic services, Mr. Dudley stated
that the mental health assessments are administered either by psychologists who are on
the premises (i.e., in three detention centers) or by contracted psychologists in the
community. Substance abuse screenings are done by contracted providers in a detention
center’s locality. Detention staff conduct most of the group activities. Rep. Spaulding-
Hughes inquired about the collaboration of the detention center with the respective school
systems associated with the detained youth. Ms. Dudley stated that, for short-term
detention stays, the court counselor assigned to the case was the liaison between the
facility and the school. For juveniles confined for longer periods, staff in DJJDP’s
central office contact the school to attain academic records and other pertinent
information. She further noted that academic instruction within the detention centers is
handled by certified teachers who are DJJDP employees.

       In discussing transportation services, Ms. Dudley outlined the various times that
juveniles must be transported during their stay in detention, including appearances for
mandated court hearings. DJJDP has 36 full-time transportation officers employed for
this purpose. Ms. Ableidinger asked whether all juveniles are shackled while being
transported to or from detention. Ms. Dudley stated, because of safety concerns, all
5
juveniles were shackled during their period of transportation. Mr. Deitch inquired about
the availability of video hearings to decrease the number of juveniles who would have to
physically be transported to court for a hearing. Ms. Dudley responded that only Wake
and Mecklenburg counties have that capability.

Youth Development Centers (YDCs)
         Dr. Pharr began his overview of YDCs by presenting information on the history
of YDCs (formerly known as “training school”), beginning with the authorization of the
first training school in 1907 (e.g., Stonewall Jackson) and ending with the recent opening
of four new YDCs in 2008. These new facilities are smaller (i.e., 32 or 64 beds) and
based on a therapeutic model (i.e., Model of Care) which requires a high staff to juvenile
ratio, lending itself to intensive programming throughout the day. The recently opened
YDCs that offer these features are Cabarrus YDC, Lenoir YDC, Edgecombe YDC, and
Chatham YDC. The remaining five facilities include: Dobbs YDC, Stonewall Jackson
YDC, Samarkand YDC, and Swannanoa YDC. As a result of the new YDCs, some of
the older buildings on the campuses of Dobbs and Stonewall Jackson have closed,
leaving some of the “newer” buildings on these two campuses to still be utilized. Ms.
Pearce inquired about the current YDC bed capacity. Ms. Dudley stated that, due to the
fact that DJJDP cannot fully staff the new facilities because of funding issues, juveniles
are slowly being transitioned to the these YDCs. Presently, there are 395 juveniles in
YDCs. Ms. Pearce followed up by asking about the bed capacity if the new facilities
were fully staffed. Ms. Dudley answered that there would be 411 beds. She added that
the bed capacity would increase if DJJDP can continue to utilize some of the buildings
that are still usable at Dobbs and Stonewall Jackson.

        Rep. Spaulding-Hughes posed the question about the starting salary for YDC
staff. Ms. Dudley responded that the annual beginning salary is $25,000. Arnold Dennis
asked about the cost of a YDC bed per juvenile. Ms. Dudley advised that the last figure
that she was aware of was $105,000 per year per juvenile in a YDC. Mr. Deitch wanted
to know if the committed youth with the most serious offenses still were housed at Dillon
YDC. Ms. Dudley indicated that these types of youth were now housed throughout the
all of the state’s YDCs. Billy Lassiter noted that of the juveniles currently in a YDC,
34% had been adjudicated for a Class A-E felony.

        Dr. Pharr then discussed the service domains that are offered within the YDCs.
These service areas include: medical, education, nutrition, mental health, chaplaincy,
social work, recreation, habilitation, and family. YDCs contract with local providers for
some of these services. He described the process by which juveniles are matched with
services that are appropriate for their needs. This process begins with an evidence-based
assessment that is used to plan for individualized services for each juvenile. A service
planning team, consisting of the juvenile, parent/guardian, court counselor, YDC staff,
and community stakeholders, assists with the development and regular monitoring of the
service plan. Secretary Hayes stated that YDCs are located in different areas across the
State so that committed juveniles will be in close proximity to their families in an effort
to promote family participation in the YDC experience.

6
         With regard to the delivery of services within YDCs, Dr. Pharr advised that
evidence-based interventions are available in the YDCs and that juveniles are paired with
interventions according to their specific needs. Dr. Robin Jenkins advised that the
programming within the YDCs is focused on taking central elements of evidence-based
practices and weaving them into the daily lives of the committed youth. He emphasized
the importance of having a diversity of elements that can be matched to the needs of each
juvenile. Dr. Pharr related that the Department recognizes the need for developing more
vocational/job-related educational opportunities for juveniles in YDCs, however; a lack
of staff and resources have delayed this effort. But, he noted that the DJJDP has received
a new grant from the Department of Commerce (i.e., Work Incentive Act) that will
enable committed juveniles to work and be trained.

        The topic of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) within YDCs was
broached. Ms. Nantz advised members that this topic would be addressed in more detail
by the YAPTF. Members also questioned whether the funds that are received by school
systems for each student follow a juvenile who is committed to YDC. Cindy Williamson
stated that whenever youth leave one school entity and enter another for any reason, the
funding for that youth does not follow.

        With regard to commitment trends, Dr. Pharr indicated that the State has seen a
decrease in both juvenile crime and YDC commitments. Interestingly enough, given the
purpose of the YAPTF to plan for moving 16 and 17 year old offenders to the juvenile
justice system, it was noted that 69% of the juveniles in YDCs are 16 years old or older.
Returning to an earlier discussion of budget cuts to some of the community programs,
Secretary Hayes remarked that it will be interesting to see if these program losses will
affect the future commitment rate.

        In conclusion, Dr. Pharr and Ms. Dudley reviewed the DJJDP’s needs for 16 and
17 year olds relative to detention centers, transportation services, and YDCs. In
particular, the Department is estimating that there will be a need for an additional 800
detention beds (if there is no increase to alternatives to detention) to accommodate the
expansion of the juvenile offender population to include 16 and 17 year olds.
Additionally, with the change in the juvenile jurisdictional age, the DJJDP is projecting
the need for an additional 480 beds (and an additional number of staff to handle the
increase in committed youth). (Note: A listing of all of the DJJDP recommendations can
be found at the end of the two power point presentations.)

WORK GROUP DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DJJDP
        Ms. Pearce related that the Work Group’s April meeting and a portion of the May
meeting would be devoted to the process of developing recommendations. She then
directed members to a handout designed to assist them in the modeling of
recommendations (see Handout). Ms. Pearce noted that it was important, when preparing
recommendations, to provide a rationale for each one. She urged members to work on
their recommendations and submit them to Ms. Nantz prior to the April 22 Work Group
meeting.

7
       Ms. Calhoun was recognized to present information on specific interventions that
have been shown by studies to be successful, cost-beneficial ways of dealing with
juvenile offenders. (See handout.) She noted that this information was extracted from
two studies, Dr. Mark Lipsey’s meta-analysis of juvenile programs and a study conducted
by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Ms. Calhoun suggested that this
information could be used as a resource for members as they worked on their
recommendations.

NEXT STEPS
       Rep. Spaulding-Hughes reminded the Work Group that the April 22 meeting
would begin at 1:00 p.m., following the YAPTF meeting. All members of the three work
groups were invited to attend the Task Force meeting which will begin at 10:00 a.m.

CLOSING AND ADJOURNMENT
       With no other business being noted, Rep. Spaulding-Hughes adjourned the
meeting at 3:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Karen H. Calhoun
Senior Research and Policy Associate
North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

.




8