PBWG Minutes2 11 10 by ck4p0w


                           RALEIGH, NC
                        FEBRUARY 11, 2010

The Programs and Benefits Work Group of the Youth Accountability Planning Task
Force met on Thursday, February 11, 2010, at the North Carolina Judicial Center in
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Task Force Members Present: Sen. Ed Jones (Co-Chair, North Carolina Senate), 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)), Sonya Brown (DHHS), Demetris Burke (Youth Minister), Brandy Bynum
(Action for Children), Karen Calhoun (North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory
Commission (NC SPAC)), John Cox (Juvenile Crime Prevention Council), Arnold
Dennis (North Carolina Central University-Juvenile Justice Institute), Honorable Mark
Galloway (Chief District Court Judge), Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell (Criminologist),
Dr. Anne-Marie Iselin (Duke Center for Child and Family Policy), Dr. Steve Moody
(Department of Correction (DOC)/Division of Prisons (DOP)), Teresa Price (DJJDP),
Susan Richardson (Kate B. Reynolds Trust/North Carolina Contact for Reclaiming
Futures Initiative), Mike Rieder (DJJDP), Cindy Williamson (Department of Public
Instruction (DPI)).

Guests: Jamal Carr (DJJDP), Gary Kearney (DJJDP), Billy Lassiter (DJJDP).

       Sen. Ed Jones, Co-Chair of the Programs and Benefits Work Group, convened the
meeting at 12:40 p.m. After welcoming all of those present, he recognized Teresa Price,
Deputy Secretary for Community Programs at DJJDP, to present information on the
Department’s community-based programming for juveniles. (See Power Point Handout.)

Community Programs
       Ms. Price began by pointing out the community programs under the umbrella of
DJJDP that are still in operation and those which were now defunct due to a lack of
funding. The programs which were not cut include: Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
(JCPC) programs, Multipurpose Juvenile Homes, Eckerd Wilderness Education
Programs, Project Challenge, and the Juvenile Assessment Center. The following
programs were eliminated: Support our Students (SOS), Governor’s One-on-One
Program, Center for the Prevention of School Violence, and Boys and Girls Clubs.

Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPC)
        JCPC programming constitutes the majority of the community-based
programming under DJJDP. Ms. Price noted that 53% of the referrals to JCPC services
are from the Juvenile Court (either through diversion or as a condition of probation), with
the remainder of referrals coming from the community (e.g., schools) for “at-risk youth.
Mr. Dennis related that in his county (Durham), some of the programs mix court-
involved juveniles with those who are not involved with the juvenile justice system in an
effort to allow court-involved youth the opportunity to learn more positive skills. Since
JCPCs are a collaborative effort between state and local government, the source of
funding for programs comes from both entities. The average cost of a JCPC program is
$1,000. According to Ms. Price, funding for JCPCs has remained between $22 and $25
million dollars since 2000. Current funding is being subsidized, in part, by federal
stimulus money.

        Ms. Price described the yearly process that local Councils go through to
determine the programs that will be funded. She stated that many of the JCPC programs
are based on evidence-based research or on best practices. JCPCs use data from their
respective counties to determine the gaps in services and, consequently, what types of
programs to fund. There are four primary JCPC program types: residential programs
restorative programs, clinical treatment programs, and structured activities. Each
program type has standards and policies for the provision of services. When a program is
not meeting specific standards, Ms. Price noted that they are not funded the next year.
She added that seven programs were not funded this year that had received funding last
year. Listed below is each program type and its individual services.
Residential Programs:
-Group Homes: Ms. Price noted that, when a mental health agency is involved, with a
group home, the guidelines are different and more stringent than the JCPC standards.
-Temporary Shelter Care
-Runaway Shelter: These types of shelters are not as prevalent and exist in only 10
counties. Ms. Price indicated that these shelters are frequently utilized for undisciplined
youth and that there are limited resources in the State for the undisciplined group.
-Specialized Foster Care
-Temporary Foster Care

         With regard to Specialized Foster Care, Mr. Deitch asked if this service was paid
for by the Department of Social Services or by the JCPC. Secretary Hayes responded
that she did not know by which source this service was funded, however, she stated that
this is a rare program which served only 10 juveniles during the past year. Ms. Price took
this opportunity to note that situations often arise in which there is a question of which
agency will take responsibility for a juvenile who is involved with multiple agencies.
Ms. Evans-Armwood added that when this scenario is present, this is the time when
partnerships and good communication between agencies is important in deciding about
the issues of program cost and responsibility for a juvenile. Secretary Hayes proposed
that the issues of collaboration and being good stewards of funds need to be a part of the
Work Group’s discussions and recommendations. Mr. Deitch questioned whether or not

there would be more federal monies coming to North Carolina for the funding of services
for juveniles. Secretary Hayes responded in the affirmative and also stated that there
would probably be more recovery monies coming to our State.

        Proceeding with the program types, Ms. Price reviewed restorative programs. She
advised that these programs are research (evidence)-based and have intermediate
outcomes that are measured six months after juveniles exit the program.
Restorative Programs:
-Teen Court: This resource is used for first-time offenders.
-Restorative Intervention
-Restitution (monetary and community service)

        In discussing the clinical treatment program type, Ms. Price stated that these
programs are intensive and use certified, licensed personnel.           The therapeutic
interventions that are utilized in some of the programs include: Multi-Systemic Therapy,
Functional Family Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Training, and Aggression Replacement
Therapy. She also noted that juveniles can be in more than one of these programs.
Clinical Treatment Programs:
-Individual/Group/Family Therapy
-Home-Based Therapy
-Substance Abuse Treatment
-Sex Offender Treatment

        The final type of JCPC programming structured activities, utilizes evidence-based
practices which include motivational interviewing and strengthening families. Ms. Price
also related that the evidence-based comprehensive gang model is incorporated into some
of these services.
 Structured Activities:
-Structured Day Programming
-Parent/Family Skill Building
-Experiential Skill Building
-Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
-Vocational Development

Other Community Programming
        Following the review of JCPCs, Ms. Price moved on to another community-based
program, Multipurpose Juvenile Homes. According to Ms. Price, all of the homes have
been contracted to Methodist Home for Children since 1993. Methodist Home uses a
“model of care” therapeutic intervention. Since this is a Level 2 disposition, all youth are
referred to the program by their respective juvenile courts. Juveniles who were served by
this program last year totaled 191. After juveniles are discharged from a home, they
continue to be served by Methodist Home staff in the community through a continuing
care component. Two of the Multipurpose Homes were closed last year, leaving five
homes that are located primarily in the eastern portion of the State. Ms. Price contended

that, if the age of juvenile jurisdiction is raised to 18, consideration will need to be given
to incorporating some new elements (e.g., transitional living skills) for this older age
group into the model of care.

        Another community-based program is the Eckerd Wilderness Education Program.
Ms. Price advised that, since 1978, Eckerd has contracted with our State to provide foster
care camp services to youth with behavioral, emotional, and delinquency problems. The
average length of stay for a juvenile is nine months. The camps provide an alternative to
more restrictive settings and serve approximately 700 youth per year. Eckerd Wilderness
Camps have an educational component with certified teachers (who are DJJDP
employees) which allows youth to earn educational credits and assists them with reentry
into public schools. Five camps are presently operating following the closing of two
camps last year. The camps have imposed new admission criteria which state that
juveniles must be either involved with the juvenile court or a JCPC program. Secretary
Hayes offered praise for the program and noted that juveniles are, not only learning to
live independently and in collaboration with others, but are making educational strides.
Mr. Cox asked about the yearly cost of an Eckerd Camp placement for a juvenile. Billy
Lassiter responded that the cost was $135.00 per day per youth.

        Ms. Price finished the review of community programming with a description of
JCPC Demonstration Projects. Categorized as a Level 2 or 3 disposition, the projects’
purpose is to provide alternatives to commitment locally through JCPCs for juveniles
who have been committed to or have a high probability of being committed to a Youth
Development Center (YDC). [Note: In order to better understand the different levels
within the Juvenile Punishment Chart, Work Group members were directed to look at
their handout which displays the chart.] These projects are based on research-based
practices and provide intensive supervision, prescriptive service planning, wrap-around
services, and a strong collaboration with juvenile court personnel. There are currently
eight projects, serving approximately 100 youth at a yearly cost per individual of $7,000.

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
        Noting that one of the legislative duties of the Youth Accountability Planning
Task Force speaks to “eliminate[ing}racial disparity,” Ms. Price summarized DJJDP’s
efforts to reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). She indicated that DJJDP
made a decision to concentrate on systemic issues within the juvenile justice system that
might have an effect on DMC. To help with this task, Ms. Price pointed to a flow chart
used by the DJJDP (see Handout) which depicts the decision points in the juvenile
justice system and the degree of influence that the agency has over these decisions. Next,
the different roles that JCPCs can play in reducing DMC at the community level were
briefly discussed. In relation to this, Ms. Price noted the importance of key leaders in the
community who serve on JCPCs and how the very nature of the JCPC yearly planning
process identifies underserved populations, as well as gaps in services for specific

DJJDP Recommendations
     Ms. Price concluded her presentation by stating that community-based

programming for juveniles is currently in need of the following: full continuum of
services for each county, expansion of Demonstration Projects Model and evidence-based
services, intentional focus on DMC by JCPCs and community programs, and enhanced
compliance monitoring and quality assurance. In the event that 16 and 17 year olds are
added to the juvenile justice system, DJJDP has estimated that this change would double
the present number of juveniles who are served. This, in turn, would lead to the need for
more community-based programs. In addition to the expansion of programming, Ms.
Price indicated that there would have to be an increase in different types of programs and
services as well as changes to some of the existing programming in order to account for
the contrasting developmental needs and issues between the newly added, older youth
and the younger juveniles. DJJDP has identified some community programming needs
for 16 and 17 year olds which include: increases in field and central office staff,
additional placements and beds, program enhancements and additions, and risk
management and other kinds of training for program personnel. Ms. Price noted that
JCPCs would have to incorporate specific services that are geared more towards 16 and
17 year olds, such as functional vocational programs, substance abuse treatment,
parenting skills training, and transitional/re-entry services.

        Ms. Nantz asked members to keep in mind today’s recommendations from DJJDP
in the area of community-based programming for the current juvenile population as well
as the population with the addition of the 16 and 17 year olds. At the next Work Group
meeting on March 12th, which will be a full-day meeting (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), she
stated that DJJDP would present information and recommendations relative to its court
services and secure facilities (e.g., detention centers, YDCs). Ms. Pearce encouraged
members to submit any information or questions for the DJJDP to include at the March
meeting. Following the Department’s presentation, Ms. Nantz indicated that the Work
Group would begin to formulate recommendations based on the information that had
been provided by DJJDP.

        In looking at future meetings, Ms. Nantz advised that the group should consider
dates for meetings in May, July, and September. She indicated that proposed dates for
those meetings would be sent to members in the next week and that they should respond
with their availability for those dates.

     With no other business being noted, Senator Jones adjourned the meeting at 3:10

Respectfully submitted,

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



To top