End of 1997 statistics show the juvenile IDOC

Document Sample
End of 1997 statistics show the juvenile IDOC Powered By Docstoc


                                              March 12, 1999

                                     120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1016
                                              Chicago, Illinois

Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting of the Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition was called to order by Co-Chair Peter
Bensinger. He stated that Co-Chair Dallas Ingemunson was unable to be present, and asked Candice Kane
to call the roll.

Coalition members in attendance were:

        Peter Bensinger
        Patricia Connell
        Ron Ellis, Illinois State Police
        Barbara Engel
        Honorable William Hibbler, Juvenile Justice Division, Cook County Circuit Court
        Gordon Johnson, Jane Addams Hull House Association
        Michael Mahoney, John Howard Association
        Darrell McGibany, Madison County Court Services
        John Platt, Illinois Department of Corrections

Also in attendance were Anne Studzinski and Candice Kane. Members unable to be present: Co-Chair
Dallas Ingemunson, Norbert Goetten and Roger Richards.

Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 1999 Meeting

{Mr. Ellis made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on February 5, 1999. Mr. McGibany
seconded the motion, which passed by a unanimous voice vote.}

Chairman's Remarks

Co-Chair Bensinger stated that last month Coalition members made decisions to begin the process of
awarding funds to units of local government which, by formula, are eligible to receive $5000 or more. A
sample of the mailing that was addressed to the County Board Chair and Mayor or Village President, with
copies to the sheriff and director of court services or the chief of police, is at members’ places. Meetings
have been scheduled for next week in Chicago and Springfield to answer questions about the process.

Co-Chair Bensinger said today’s meeting will focus on the $817,925.91 that was not allocated by formula
and the $1,315,300 which is available for use by either state or local units of government. Other agenda
items are Juveniles in the Justice System, State-Supported Youth Services and a Discussion of Priorities
for FY98 Funds.

Candice Kane said that, preparatory to the Coalition making decisions about how to spend the remaining
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 2

local money and then decisions about what to do with the money reserved for statewide use, data and
information about services that are in place and what various agencies are doing will be presented. She
asked Mark Myrent, Authority staff member and former member of the juvenile justice staff, to begin with
Juveniles in the Justice System.

Juveniles in the Justice System

Mark Myrent stated he will review some juvenile justice trends from the last decade. Phil Stevenson will
talk about risk factor data, the state’s progress in implementing balanced and restorative justice principles,
and what has been learned in terms of programs that work.

Mr. Myrent said that from 1980 to the 1990 the number of juveniles had decreased in all regions except for
the collar region, with juveniles comprising about 17 percent of the Illinois population. When we look at
crime trends for juveniles, Illinois has a data problem; we are using juvenile arrest data as a proxy measure
for crime. Although the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program managed by state police has not
collected any juvenile arrest data since 1992, in 1996 the Authority collected adult and juvenile data from
around the state for the years 1993 through 1995.

Mr. Myrent said that generally we find that in the long term juvenile arrests for property crime have been
going down, although they have been increasing in collar and rural counties. Arrests for drug crime are
continuing to rise in all areas. Violent juvenile arrests rose steadily until 1992 when they leveled off for
three years in Cook and collar counties, decreased in urban areas and increased in rural areas. Mr. Myrent
added that when regions are compared with data normalized by population, Chicago has most of the
highest arrest rates; an exception is that property arrest rates were highest in the urban counties. For the
most serious of violent crimes, murder, there was a steady increase in juvenile arrests until 1994, followed
by a big drop-off in 1995. If we use Chicago data we know that violent crime arrests are staying at a lower
level than in the early nineties. Juveniles, who constitute about 17 percent of the Illinois population,
account for about 25 percent of property crime arrests, about 20 percent of violent crime arrests and about
13 percent of drug arrests. Mr. Myrent said that although the drug arrest figure may seem low, it is
important to remember that this figure is only for juveniles, persons age 16 and under.

A profile done in 1985 by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) shows the majority or
juveniles on probation to be white, not from families in poverty situations and coming primarily from
traditional schools. Mr. Myrent said a 1997 profile we have of the juvenile division of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) shows that 95 percent of juveniles had arrest histories for commission
of violent criminal acts; 86 percent had been identified with a prior history of youth gang affiliation; 80
percent had a significant substance history (up from 50 percent in 1991); the majority come from multi-
problem families and experienced abuse, neglect, emotional or physical trauma; one-third required the
services of a mental health professional; one-third is classified as special education and nearly 25 percent
will require an alternative placement upon release.

In response to a question from Co-Chair Bensinger who asked if IDOC is able to service special education
and mental health needs Mr. Platt responded that the answer is “no” to the needs, and “yes” to the extent
that needs are assessed and prioritized so that those at highest risk get the highest level of service. He
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 3

added that the figures significantly under represent the number of children who are potentially special
education. In addition, the level of crowding is such that significant numbers of juveniles only go to school
every other day. Answering Co-Chair Bensinger’s question as to the care and attention juveniles would
receive on probation Mr. Platt stated one strategy is to accelerate the transition to the community,
providing a 90-day step-down in the juvenile’s community. Right now a juvenile is either “in” or “out”—
there is a gap to fill to have a continuum of services to address the juvenile’s needs. Mr. Platt said some
progress has been made, and that today he is asking for some resources to continue that progress. In
response to Gordon Johnson’s question about recidivism Mr. Platt used figures from a study that followed
every juvenile who left the system between 1993 and 1996 for a three year period. Thirty-five percent of
the juveniles came back; 10 percent to adult, 25 percent to juvenile. Significant is the fact that of the 25
percent who returned to juvenile, two-thirds came back as technical violators; there is nothing in the
middle to pull them back to day reporting or into a transition center for a week or a month. Effective
supervision requires intervention at the time a problem emerges and interventions are up now because of
an attempt to address issues when they arise.

Mr. Myrent noted that historically there has been a greater degree of discretionary decision making in
response to juvenile offenders. That response is beginning to change with the new reform provisions.
About 30 percent of juveniles who are arrested for drug, violent and weapon offenses and nearly half
arrested for property crimes are referred to court; the rest are station adjusted. Discretionary decision
making continues at the court stage. The number of delinquency petitions filed has remained near 50
percent since 1994. The number of those petitions resulting in an adjudication of delinquency went from
about 25 percent in 1994 to about 43 percent in 1996 and 1997. Over that time period the percent of filings
adjudicated in Cook, urban and rural counties increased while the percent decreased in the collar counties.
A fairly steady rise to about 20 percent is seen in the percentage of adjudicated juveniles that go to IDOC.
Mr. Myrent said the vast majority of juveniles are supervised in the community. At the end of 1997 there
were about 19,000 juveniles on probation, 2,000 in IDOC institutions and 1,000 on parole. The average
length of stay in the juvenile division of IDOC is only about nine months; the average length of stay on
probation is about a year.

End of 1997 statistics show the juvenile IDOC population was about 2100 while there were 1300 beds.
Mr. Platt added that with the opening of the addition on the boot camp there are now around 1360 beds but
the population has been 2224 juveniles. In response to a comment by Co-Chair Bensinger about the loss of
facilities, Mr. Platt said they lost the camps, Sheridan, Geneva, Hanna City, Dixon Springs and Kankakee.
He added that with Murphysboro, which is new, IDOC is down to seven institutions. Specialized
placement options have been lost. Hanna City had an outstanding school program; Kankakee with a focus
on reentry, transitional planning and support had the lowest recidivist rate of any of the juvenile
institutions. Mr. Mahoney commented that generally the resources have gone to the adult division.

Mr. Johnson asked if the losses were for budget reasons. Mr. Platt responded there have been several
reductions. The Juvenile Justice Commission and the Authority reviewed funding in 1989 or 1990 and said
juvenile IDOC had lost the equivalent of 30 percent of funding. During the state’s severe fiscal crisis in
1991 only twelve juvenile parole persons were left to supervise 1200 juveniles statewide.

Mr. Myrent said there is a somewhat parallel situation with county-run juvenile detention centers. Between
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 4

1985 and 1996 total juvenile admission to the detention centers increased 32 percent, with 21 percent of
the increase occurring from 1995 to 1996. The increase is driven by pre-adjudications much more so than
by juveniles being committed as a result of adjudication. Urban counties alone had a 65 percent increase in
pre-adjudicatory juvenile admissions to detention centers from 1993 to 1996. Cook County has used pre-
adjudication for more juveniles with the result that they have fewer juveniles now serving dispositions.

Mr. Myrent stated that the perceived problem of increased numbers of serious juvenile offenders has been
addressed by passing more laws to get juveniles transferred into criminal court. Beginning in the 1980’s
the legislature has created a number of laws in terms of different kinds of eligibility criteria for juveniles to
be transferred automatically into adult court. The number of transfers has increased significantly over the
past decade going from less than 300 in 1988 to more than 600 in 1997 while the number committed to
IDOC went from about 50 to less than 100. Mr. Myrent said that measures intended to have a more
punitive purpose have not had that effect. In looking at juvenile transfer cases in Cook County we see that
juveniles transferred for murder, armed robbery and aggravated criminal sexual assault generally went to
prison after conviction. Of the larger number of juveniles transferred for unlawful use of a weapon and for
drug sales near a school or public housing very few are going to IDOC upon conviction. Those juveniles
are not being treated more punitively—and they are not getting access to the kind of services and programs
that are available through the juvenile court.

In summary, Mr. Myrent said the rates of juvenile crime, at least for drug and for violent crime, are
currently higher than they have been in the past. It is mainly males involved in the system. More kids are in
the community under supervision than are in detention centers or IDOC. In areas outside Cook County we
are seeing an increase toward more punitive responses.

Mr. Myrent stated a disturbing trend is in the increasing use of drugs. The biggest increases are taking
place in the collar counties and in the rural regions. Illinois survey results mirror national figures in that
there was some decrease in reported drug use up until the early nineties, and from 1990 to 1995 there has
been an increase in the percentage of juveniles reporting regular drug use. A disturbing finding is that drug
use seems to be increasing on a larger scale among the youngest juveniles. Mr. Myrent said there is strong
evidence of the link between drug use and criminality. Using information on juveniles arrested outside of
Cook County we found that 54 percent of males and 27 percent of females tested positive for drugs,
primarily marijuana. In 1995 nine percent of all juveniles on probation were ordered into drug treatment.
Only about 22 percent of juveniles on probation primarily for a drug offense are getting into drug

Looking to the future, Mr. Myrent said demographers are telling us that the number of persons in the crime
prone age group is going to be increasing. Research from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) over the last years is trying to focus on the causes of delinquency and risk factor data
such as child abuse, school drop outs and kids born to teenage moms. Mr. Myrent said that we are seeing
some of those risk factors become more prevalent. He asked Phil Stevenson to continue with risk factors.

Mr. Stevenson stated that an important point concerning risk factors is that when multiple risk factors are
found in one individual their combined effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects. Risk factors
can be grouped into three categories: individual risk factors, family risk factors, and peer, socioeconomic
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 5

and neighborhood risk factors. In response to Ms. Engel’s question as to the reason some factors were
highlighted, Mr. Stevenson said they are the risk factors for which the Authority has data. He added that he
will be working to build the inventory of risk factor data.

Mr. Stevenson said when we look at the risk factor of child abuse, we find that while state rates overall
were lower in 1998 than in the early nineties, in urban and rural areas the rates are still higher in 1998 than
they were at the beginning of the decade.

Over the last several years the rate of Illinois children receiving temporary assistance for needy families has
decreased slightly. Still, while there are large regional differences, in 1997 thirteen out of every 100 youth
18 and under received temporary financial assistance. A recent report from OJJDP indicates that of all the
socioeconomic risk factors, a family receiving public assistance was associated with the highest risk of

Mr. Stevenson said that although the rate of controlled substance affected infants reached a peak in 1994
and is now decreasing, in 1997 approximately 1300 of every 100,000 Illinois kids were born with drugs in
their system. Again, there were significant regional variations. The rate of births to teenage mothers has not
changed significantly since 1991, suburban Cook and collar counties have the lowest rates.

The high school dropout rate statewide has been relatively consistent, between six and seven percent, from
1990-91 to 1997-98. The Cook County rate is considerably higher than other areas of the state. All regions
experienced a slight increase between 1990-91 and 1995-96. In school year 1996-97 there was no striking
difference by sex. Differences emerge when making the same comparison by race; African American
students and Hispanic students are over-represented among high school dropouts.

Research also tells us that there are protective factors. Examples include strong attachment to schools,
strong attachment to parents, effective parental supervision and conventional (non-delinquent) friends have
all been shown to be positively correlated with law abiding behavior. Mr. Stevenson noted that we have
seen significant regional variation in the frequency and types of juvenile crime and the risk factors
associated with them. Thus, targeting risk and protective factors at the most local level will increase the
likelihood that prevention efforts can be directed where there is the greatest need.

Mr. Stevenson said the triangle model for balanced and restorative justice is basically the same. The three
sides of the model represent the victim, the offender and the community—with each receiving equal
attention from the juvenile justice system. More specifically, the goal of the juvenile justice process for the
victim is repairing the harm; for offenders is building competency; and for the community is community
protection. In the purpose and policy statement of the new Juvenile Court Act we see the exact same
language as is used for balanced and restorative justice.

The Juvenile Justice Commission sponsored five regional training sessions on the new Juvenile Court Act
that were attended by well over one thousand people. Results from a survey of participants indicated
varying degrees of agreement on the juvenile justice system. State’s attorneys and public defenders feel
repairing the harm to victims and the community is given priority by the juvenile justice system while law
enforcement, probation and community-based youth service providers (CBYSP) disagreed with the
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 6

statement. With regard to victim access to information, support and services, public defenders feel victims
are provided with a wide range of information, support and services while probation and CBYSPs tended
to disagree; state’s attorneys and law enforcement were more divided on this issue. State’s attorneys,
public defenders and probation people feel that juvenile offenders are supervised in a manner consistent
with the risks they present while law enforcement and CBYSPs have a different opinion of the relationship
between supervision and risk. Most respondents do not believe that opportunities are
available in the community for building competency skills in juvenile offenders; state’s attorneys are more
divided on this issue. There is uniform agreement across disciplines that victims do not regard the juvenile
justice system as responsive, fair and just. There is general agreement across all disciplines that juvenile
offenders are not involved in activities that build skill and competency. There is general agreement that the
system is not giving balanced attention to the three stakeholders in the process: the victim, the offender and
the community. There is general agreement across disciplines that resources are not allocated appropriately
to meet the objectives of the balanced and restorative justice and the new Juvenile Court Act.

Looking at the overall results of the survey, Mr. Stevenson said he senses a general agreement that Illinois
has not been doing balanced and restorative justice. This is not a criticism because the Juvenile Court Act
just became effective January 1, 1999. Assistance either in training, financial support or strong leadership
will be needed in order for our juvenile justice system to make this philosophical shift from a rehabilitative
or retributive approach to a more balanced approach.

Mr. Stevenson summarized recent research on prevention and intervention programs for delinquency
prevention: Lipsey, meta-analysis on studies of intervention programs; Sherman et al., review of the
literature on prevention programs; and the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Blueprints

Lipsey and Wilson, 1998, asked two questions: Are intervention programs effective at reducing the
reoffending rates for serious delinquents? And, if so, what types of programs are most effective? They
identified individualized counseling, interpersonal skill training, behavioral programs, multiple service
programs and restitution as five treatment programs effective in non-institutional settings.
Interpersonal skill training, teaching family home, behavioral programs, community residential programs
and multiple service programs were identified as effective with institutionalized offenders.

The Sherman Report, 1996, is an independent review of crime programs that were funded by the
Department of Justice. Sherman and the other authors of the report organized their programs by the setting
in which the prevention program is based. They identified the following programs that work in families:
frequent home visits to infants by nurses and other helpers; preschool and weekly home visits by teachers
to children under five; and family therapy and parent training for families with high risk preadolescents.
There is considerable overlap between these programs and those in the blueprints project. Programs that
work in schools include: organizational development for innovation in schools; communication and
reinforcement of clear, consistent norms; social competency skill training and coaching of high risk youth
in thinking skills. Methods that work in other domains include: extra police patrols in high crime “hot
spots”; rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders; and drug treatment for incarcerated offenders.

The University of Colorado Center for the Study of Prevention of Violence reviewed evaluation literature
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 7

and used strict criteria to identify the following ten blueprint programs: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
America; bullying prevention programs; functional family therapy; life skills training Midwestern
Prevention Project; multidimensional treatment foster care; multi-systemic therapy; prenatal and infancy
home visitation by nurses; promoting alternative thinking strategies; and quantum opportunities. Life skills
training and the Midwestern Prevention Project target the prevention of gateway drug use of tobacco and
marijuana in middle school students. Multi-dimensional treatment foster care is an alternative to residential
treatment for adolescents who have problems with chronic delinquency. Multi-systemic therapy targets
chronic, violent and substance abusing juvenile offenders. Prenatal and infancy home visitation, as in the
Sherman Report, targets low income at risk pregnant women. Promoting alternative thinking strategies is a
school-based program and quantum opportunities targets adolescents 13 through 18 in families receiving
public assistance through the enhancement of the academic skills, development activities and service
activities. Mr. Stevenson said the administrators of the blueprint programs have stated that if these
programs are implemented with a high level of adherence to program design they will guarantee the
success of these programs to prevent delinquency.

Co-Chair Bensinger asked Anne Studzinski to address youth services.

State-Supported Youth Services

Ms. Studzinski said the chart of state-supported programs dealing with juvenile delinquency at the
community level located at members’ places includes only state-supported programs; it is not a list of all
available programs. Research, evaluation, training and information systems all support good programming
and are done by the state or by private agencies. A juvenile would progress through the criminal justice
system from arrest through probation or the state’s attorney’s office, perhaps with a detour to detention,
and ultimately to the Department of Corrections. Ms. Studzinski said the programs currently in place deal
with prevention of delinquency, diversion of juvenile offenders from the system and intervention with kids
once they get into the system.

Prevention programs include Community Services (DHS), a program that came from the Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) and before that through the Illinois Commission on Delinquency
Prevention, IDOC’s Juvenile Division and the University of Chicago where it was developed over fifty
years ago. Programs promote delinquency prevention through community organization; one example is the
Chicago Area Project. Comprehensive Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention (DHS) came from
the Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse. The focus of activities is on schools and parent
training—getting everybody involved with the kids’ programs; the In Touch programs are related to this
program. Positive Youth Development (DHS), the most grass roots prevention activity, was started at
DCFS with $5,000 three-year grants to communities. Many of these very effective programs became sites
for community services. Teen REACH (DHS) is a popular community level program for kids up through
age 17 originally intended to focus on children of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
clients. It has expanded beyond the original child care programs for preschoolers to activities for after
school and off school days. Title V Delinquency Prevention (JJC) is currently at eleven sites through three-
year grants with programs that tie together all activities and community organizing around risk and
protective factors. Communities CAN! (DHS) is a discretionary grant from the Department of Health and
Human Services to focus on prevention of alcohol, drug and tobacco abuse at the community level through
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 8

coalitions that were already in existence with the research base. Community-Policing (JJC and ICJIA); the
Juvenile Justice Commission is currently negotiating a second grant with the Law Enforcement Foundation
of Illinois for their day camps. The Foundation, Roger Richards, Chair, is looking at ways they can do
some follow-up with the kids. Safe to Learn (IVPA) is violence prevention training in the schools. Ms.
Studzinski said this is not an exhaustive list, but it does provide a sense of the broad range of prevention
activities in Illinois. She noted that the AOIC, with the exception of Cook County, subsidizes the salaries
of probation officers including juvenile probation officers, their managing officers, and the staff and
superintendents of detention centers and can involve specialized units within probation departments,
perhaps for intensive supervision.

Diversion programs include Communities for Youth (DHS) which also has a prevention component. This
new program allowed communities to propose prevention, diversion or intervention programs to be funded
by new money from the new Juvenile Justice Reform Act. Proposals came from a very wide range of
experienced and new agencies for new as well as for expanded programs. Comprehensive Community-
Based Youth Services (DHS) is a base for youth services in the state. With a mandated population of kids
who have been taken into limited custody (who are offending because of their age status), the goal of the
crisis intervention is family reunification. New Homeless Youth programs are for kids up to 21, with the
majority between 18 to 21. These programs focus on skills needed to grow up and be able to take care of
oneself. Current Alternatives to Detention (JJC) programs are in their phase-out period and are programs
that can be used in lieu of detention at the local level. Transportation (JJC) grants go to detention centers
for transporting kids from counties without detention centers from detention to court hearings; they are
being phased out. Community-Policing (JJC and ICJIA) is included in this category because of their many
community-policing programs with a special emphasis with youth.

Intervention programs, as well as prevention and diversion programs, are provided by Communities for
Youth (DHS). Unified Delinquency Intervention Services, UDIS, (DHS) began as a federal discretionary
grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. It can be described as the last stop
before the Department of Corrections and involves highly intensive services of ten hours a week for about
six months when providers generally start to lower the hours. All kids in the UDIS program are on
probation and are referred by the court; they are still on probation when they leave UDIS. Co-Chair
Bensinger said the program is a good investment at about $3,000 a kid. Ms. Studzinski continued with
intervention programs. Release Upon Request (DHS) is a Cook County program for kids released from
detention by the courts who have a parent who refuses to come pick them up. Alternatives to Detention
(JJC) also included among diversion programs, Delinquency Prevention (DHS) began with Juvenile
Justice funds, and later with state funds with a range of 16 programs primarily in Cook County. Ms.
Studzinski stated it is her understanding that Governor’s Youth Service Initiative (GYSI), a Cook County
program, is not taking new cases, and that it is being phased out. She said the clients are delinquent and
usually have another severe problem. Treatment for these cases was funded by a combination of DCFS
(now DHS, and formerly Department of Mental Health) and Corrections. Mr. Platt stated that while
Corrections is a participant, not a partner, Corrections is a primary beneficiary of the services. The children
placed in this program have very expensive special needs. He expressed the concern that we are very much
at risk in losing the state-supported funding for this kind of diversion; it is well beyond the ability of IDOC
to meet the service requirements for these kids. Ms. Studzinski said GYSI kids have individual care grants
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 9

awarded by the Office of Mental Health at DHS. The threshold for an individual care grant is high; the kid
who has a behavior disorder is not going to get a grant. The General Assembly, as part of the Juvenile
Justice Reform Bill, appropriated over eight million dollars to the Department of Public Aid to allow the
counties to claim Medicaid reimbursement for placing kids in Medicaid certified facilities. Justice system
involvement is not needed to get a treatment slot in the Drug Treatment Programs. Ms. Studzinski related
this listing of state-supported youth services does not include the activities of the Authority.

Mr. Mahoney said DCFS has dramatically reduced its out of state placement from a high of 1500 three
years ago to under 150 today. DCFS, through a committee on which Mr. Mahoney served, has written
standards for DCFS licensed secure care facilities. The facilities will be very good clinically oriented
programs but will be available only for DCFS placement. Mr. Mahoney stated he argued that both local
juvenile court judges and some of the kids in Corrections, many of whom are already DCFS wards, could
benefit greatly from the programs. He said these programs will be denied to delinquent youth. Mr. Platt
commented that the Juvenile Justice Reform Act has extended the jurisdiction of IDOC to supervision of
committed youth to age 21 again after having it reduced to 19 earlier in order to be compatible with the
authority of DCFS. He added it is a terrible commentary to think that we would have to refer a child to a
homeless program because there are no state resources available to assist that child who reaches mandatory
discharge date and has no known guardian. Ms. Studzinski commented that five years ago legislation was
passed that precludes DCFS from taking a child over the age of 12 who has been arrested, let along
adjudicated for a delinquent offense, unless an independent cause of abuse or neglect can be demonstrated.

Ms. Studzinski said there are three primary information systems in addition to regular criminal justice data
that also includes juveniles. JMIS, the Juvenile Monitoring Information System, formerly DCFS and now
DHS, monitors kids who are in jails, lockups and detention centers. YSIS is the Youth Service Information
System that allows us to count the kids that get DHS funded services. The newest is the Statewide Central
Juvenile Records System created by the State Police in response to their responsibilities under the Juvenile
Justice Reform Act.

Mr. Mahoney said a big issue for counties is the cost to juvenile courts when they place a youngster into a
variety of programs. There is tension in counties as they try to reduce the amount spent; it is cheaper to put
youth in IDOC at no cost to the county rather that to dip into county dollars to buy a placement.

Co-Chair Bensinger asked whether there is a problem with matching funds in the juvenile community. Ms.
Connell responded that the most recent set of Juvenile Justice Commission grants, Title V grants, are
tightly controlled in terms of both what can be funded and required a one-third match. Small amounts were
requested, and the issue seemed to be the inability to match additional funds.

Mr. McGibany expressed another county level concern is that once a grant is done a program may be
dropped or the county will have to pay for the entire program.

Ms. Studzinski mentioned that last week at the Juvenile Justice Commission meeting a preliminary report
on juvenile detention in Illinois was received and accepted, but not adopted, because there has not been
time to review the recommendations and conclusions. The document at members’ places is “Results from
the Survey of Juvenile Justice Services.” It provides a good look at the perception of county probation
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 10

departments of services available to them. Ms. Connell said that the datasets contain a tremendous amount
of information—far more than the information provided here today. Available information includes kinds
of offenses for which kids are being taken into custody, level of entry into the system, education issues,
birth issues—a wealth of information.

Mr. Platt commented that the report identified a number of children admitted to detention and the use of
detention beds. It does not point out that of the intake to the IDOC juvenile division more than 500 kids a
year, or twenty percent of the intake, are now committed as court evaluations of which ninety percent will
be vacated. He added that if the crowding IDOC experiences today is reduced by 500 beds, circumstances
would be significantly improved.

Discussion of Priorities for FY98 Funds

Co-Chair Bensinger stated the final agenda item is discussion of priorities for FY98 funds—the $2.2
million available which was not allocated by formula and is available for use by either state or local units
of government. He said this Coalition needs to determine whether we want to identify program purpose
areas, what type of recipients would be eligible with units of government, and whether the funds should be
competitively bid or whether we want to pre-identify communities or areas. He asked Ms. Kane, with Ms.
Studzinski, to talk about priorities for FY98 funds including how to utilize state level funding.

Ms. Kane stated we have a little over $800,000 available in local funds, the money remaining after funds
were allocated by formula to units of local government eligible for $5,000 or more. We also have a little
over $1.3 million reserved at the state level in anticipation of spending that money on programs of state-
wide impact, most probably but not exclusively to state agencies as the grantee. Ms. Kane said we
definitely have a juvenile crime problem in the state. She suggested that given the information presented
earlier members might want to give consideration to prioritizing purpose areas 7 and 11. A Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the $800,000 to be used at the local level could be developed that further elaborates on
the blueprint programs that would be appropriate to either of those areas.

Although programs for prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses are needed, Ms. Kane said she
questions whether they qualify in any of the purpose areas. Connie Brooks, Prevention Services at DHS,
said that Governor Ryan spoke of increasing the healthy families project in his budget address.

Mr. Mahoney stated using areas 7 and 11 with the model programs makes a lot of sense. The programs will
encourage partnerships with community-based and youth serving agencies.

Co-Chair Bensinger agreed that the identified program areas respond to the needs.

Mr. Johnson asked if there is an opportunity to help jurisdictions determine how to continue programs
when funding ends.

In response to a question from Co-Chair Bensinger, Ms. Kane stated she is proposing the RFP be for just
the $800,000, although with a competitive process there is an opportunity to increase the dollar amount.
We have an opportunity to fund programs for a two-year period. Using models that have already been
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 11

developed, there should be enough time to get programs established and to get a feel for their impact. She
added she expects an evaluation component could be included and that will provide data to help
jurisdictions build an argument for continuation funding.

In response to Co-Chair Bensinger’s question about the dollar amount, Mr. Mahoney suggested we go with
the $800,000. He added that would not preclude increasing the amount if we receive a lot of very good
proposals, and after we hear from state agency people about their needs.

Ms. Engel suggested that perhaps some of the state money be used to bring in people who have done the
blueprint projects to do technical assistance to those programs that are developing here. Mr. Mahoney said
that through the Juvenile Justice Commission several technical assistance providers are available at no

Ms. Connell suggested state money be used to do evaluation and possibly to promote replication. In
response to Ms. Connell’s question about the life of the funds, Ms. Kane responded the funds have a two-
year life all together that begins at the drawdown of funds; it is not related to the federal fiscal year.

Ms. Connell asked whether we might consider funding for perhaps three years and require a small match in
the second year and a slightly larger one the third year. Ms. Kane responded that cannot be done because a
ten percent match is required. She added that we could say the first year has to be a 15-month year
recognizing the need for start-up time.

In response to a question from Mr. McGibany, Ms Kane said that the RFP will include descriptions of the
programs that work and more data than we would normally include. Mr. Taylor said that the University of
Colorado has a web site specifically for the blueprints programs. Ms. Kane added we have a hard copy for
people who do not have Internet access.

Mr. Johnson suggested we have an opportunity to bring together the agencies receiving funds for technical
assistance at a centralized conference level to help in charting the next few months of the programs. Ms.
Kane responded that we could ask people in the bidder’s conference setting to pre-indicate their areas of
interest. We could then contact OJJDP and start working on an in-service conference training.

Mr. Johnson made a motion that we accept Ms. Kane’s proposal to identify program areas 7 and 11,
include success story models and some in-service technical assistance orientation; Mr. McGibany seconded
the motion.

Ms. Engel suggested we might want to disseminate information about the blueprint programs now to
encourage using funds for programming rather than just buy something. Ms. Kane said she will have the
information available at the conferences to be held this week for interested people.

{The motion to identify program areas 7 and 11 in an RFP for the $800,000 to be used at the local level,
to include appropriate blueprint program materials and other data and to provide some in-service
orientation of a technical assistance nature as made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. McGibany was
passed by a unanimous voice vote.}
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 12

Ms. Connell asked whether we have a figure for what we think is an appropriate grant amount and if any
entity or collaboration of entities who would have gotten less than $5,000 are the eligible bidders. Ms.
Kane responded it is her assumption that they are the eligible bidders.

In response to a question from Co-Chair Bensinger, Ms. Kane said that crime and criminal justice
expenditures were the basis for the formula. There are all kinds of problems in some of the less populated
areas that don’t get the kind of attention they need and we are seeing an increase in serious crime in the
rural communities. She added we will likely do some funding in some of the rural areas but also some in
the mid-rural areas as well.

Mr. Mahoney asked if a “generic county” got money as a county, could several of the jurisdictions in that
county who did not get money come together with Generic County in a collaboration and ask for money.
Ms. Kane responded it would be more likely if they were part of a larger group, such as a circuit.

Answering Ms. Connell’s question about the dollar amount of the grants Ms. Kane said she would look at
the programs to see if a dollar limit might make sense. If collaborations are formed this money might go
farther than we anticipate.

Ms. Kane said an RFP will be drafted and copies distributed to Coalition members for comment. If there is
a major issue that requires the group to come together, we will do that.

Co-Chair Bensinger asked Ms. Kane if, for the state-level dollars, we will pursue dialogue with John Platt
and other interested state parties, but principally IDOC. Mr. Platt was asked if he had anything he wanted
to say now.

Mr. Platt stated that after looking at resources and master planning he concluded any additional resources
for juvenile corrections would best be added in parole where a major issue is caseload size. Current
caseloads average twice national standards for very high-risk kids. He said that the Juvenile Justice
Commission and the Authority have funded specific parole needs and that each time dollars were used to
support staff additions, they have been picked up in the following year’s budget. Another dimension of the
problem is geography. It is one thing to have 50 kids on a caseload in Cook County; it is another matter to
have 50 kids on a caseload in the 72 county southern region with, perhaps two kids in every county that
you are obligated to see. Adding agents to reduce caseloads is a prime component of the long-range plan.

Mr. Platt said another need is for additional resources next year to buy placements in transition centers.
The need for placements is going to increase because it produces better parole results for kids and because
it is a part of the effort to reintroduce kids to their communities through community-supported transition

Mr. Platt summarized saying that IDOC is asking for consideration of funding for two different processes:
one, to add agents; and second, for funding so that two parole districts can be added. A second part will be
to target community resources by region; ultimately institutional resources and reception will be added.
The result will be that every child will go to a reception area within his or her region and will be placed
Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition Meeting
March 12, 1999
Page 13

within that region in a facility, either an institution or in community, where resources will be available to
track and support them.

In answer to Co-Chair Bensinger’s question, Mr. Platt responded that he now has 45 parole officers,
including casework supervisors. An increase of thirty would make an enormous difference and bring the
department back to the minimal national standard requirement.

Mr. Mahoney commented that one of the best uses of these state dollars we could make would be to fund
this infrastructure. Ms. Connell agreed, with the assumption that a goal is institutionalizing these positions.

Mr. Mahoney asked the amount needed. Mr. Platt responded a million fifty is the amount needed for thirty
agents and thirty laptop computers. The cash match required can come from IDOC’s budget. In response to
Co-Chair Bensinger, Mr. Platt said a portion of the geographical issue could be addressed within the
budget; a part of the issue is how to get personal services additions. He said to date the best way to
leverage positions is based on allocations from JJC or from ICJIA; every single position created in a grant
has been replaced.

Mr. Johnson made a motion that $1.1 million be allocated to IDOC for parole agents and parole
supervision for one year in anticipation that the General Assembly will make continual allocations for these
positions. Mr. Mahoney seconded the motion.

Co-Chair Bensinger asked Mr. Platt if he would be able to get the thirty agents and the supervision. Mr.
Platt responded he could, and that caseloads will be cut by fifty percent and services improved. He added
he may come back later or look for some other opportunities to provide additional officers. Co-Chair
Bensinger suggested adding another hundred thousand to make $1.2 million. Mr. Johnson agreed to amend
his motion; Mr. Mahoney seconded it.

{The motion, as amended, to allocate $1.2 million to the Department of Corrections as made by Mr.
Johnson and seconded by Mr. Mahoney was passed by a unanimous voice vote.}

New Business

The next meeting will be the 4th of June at 1:00 p.m.


Co-chair Bensinger adjourned the meeting.

Shared By: