PBWG Minutes4 22 10 by 08eMGGL


                         RALEIGH, NC
                         APRIL 22, 2010

The Programs and Benefits Work Group of the Youth Accountability Planning Task
Force met on Thursday, April 22, 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).

Other Members Present: Stephanie Nantz (Co-Facilitator, DOA/Youth Advocacy and
Involvement Office), Sandy Pearce (Co-Facilitator, Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC)), Major Charles Blackwood (Orange County Sheriff’s Office), Sonya Brown
(DHHS), Brandy Bynum (Action for Children), 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 (Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS)/Division of Medical Assistance), 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), 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

Guests: Dr. Doreen Cavanaugh (Georgetown Public Policy Institute), Brandy Dolby
(Governor’s Crime Commission), Gary Kearney (DJJDP), Billy Lassiter (DJJDP), Paul
Savery (DHHS), Jean Sendaire (DJJDP), Terri Shelton (University of North Carolina-

       Rep. Spaulding-Hughes, Co-Chair of the Programs and Benefits Work Group,
convened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. After members and guests introduced themselves, she
reviewed the agenda. Rep. Spaulding-Hughes stated that the primary task of today’s
meeting would be to discuss and develop recommendations related to what would be
needed for the implementation of the change in the juvenile jurisdictional age to 18. The
recommendations developed by the Work Group would then be forwarded to the Task
Force for their consideration. She reminded members that they were asked at the last
meeting to submit recommendations for the Work Group to consider. Rep. Spaulding-
Hughes advised that recommendations discussed at the meeting would be decided by the

consensus of the group, adding that failure for members to reach a consensus would
result in a vote in which the majority would rule.

       Stephanie Nantz was recognized by Rep. Spaulding-Hughes to facilitate the
group’s discussion of recommendations which had been brought forth by members since
the March Work Group meeting. Ms. Nantz began by stating the goal of the Task Force
which is to produce an overall implementation blueprint if the age of juvenile jurisdiction
is expanded to include 16 and 17 year olds. The Task Force would begin reviewing any
recommendations from the three Work Groups that were ready at their June 11 meeting.

        With regard to today’s discussion of possible recommendations from the Work
Group. Ms. Nantz responded to a question relating to whether or not members should
divide the 16 and 17 year olds into sub-groups (e.g., only 16 year olds) when formulating
recommendations relative to programming. She answered that the mandate of the Task
Force was to look at 16 and 17 year olds together as one group. In general, members
were cautioned against being sidetracked by legal and costs issues since the other two
Work Groups were charged with working on these topics.

        Al Deitch asked if any of DOC’s programs for 16 and 17 year olds would be
transferred to the DJJDP. Sec. Hayes responded that the DOC would continue to deal
with this age group until the law to change the jurisdictional age was fully implemented.

       Ms. Nantz related that the group would begin their work today by reviewing the
recommendations that had been submitted by the DJJDP. Upon completion of this,
recommendations submitted by Work Group members would be discussed. She pointed
out that Sandy Pearce would be typing into the computer any edits or additions to
recommendations that were adopted by the group. (See working draft of the DJJDP’s

Recommendation #1

DJJDP Recommendation: The Department will need to adjust and increase evidence-
based programming to address the new target population such as: specialized treatment
(trauma, sex offender, substance abuse, parenting skills, vocational education and job
readiness/coaching, preparation for adult independent living, and gender responsive

        Rep. Hughes asked about the way in which vocational training is currently being
done by the DJJDP and how it would operate with the addition of 16 and 17 year olds.
Sec. Hayes stated that her Department was currently attempting to regenerate some of the
vocational education programs that had been eliminated as a result of recent budgetary
issues. Some of these programs include: plumbing, electrical, horticulture, culinary
skills and cosmetology. Sec. Hayes advised that the DJJDP has been advocating against
the legislative recommendation to close Samarkand Youth Development Center (YCD),

since one of the building on the campus of this YDC contains commercial sewing
machines that could be utilized for vocational training purposes. With regard to
community-based programs, Teresa Price added that the DJJDP would like to partner
with local community colleges (a practice in which the DOC is presently engaged) and
other local entities (e.g., Workforce Investment Board) in order to develop and
implement vocational/job skills training programs. Brandy Bynum queried whether this
partnering should be a formalized agreement between involved parties. Sec. Hayes noted
that the DJJDP might prefer to have this as a collaboration rather than a formal agreement
that might place too much pressure on agencies. Karen Calhoun agreed and noted that
collaboration with other relevant agencies on various projects could be formulated into a
broad recommendation. Sen. Jones and Arnold Dennis suggested the incorporation of the
idea of providing incentives to agencies that engaged in collaborative efforts. Billy
Lassiter explained that the DJJDP created Recommendation #1 to be broad and that
Recommendations 19 and 20 speak to more specific issues concerning vocational

       Paul Savery indicated that it was important for recommended treatment to be
evidence-based so that outcomes could be measured. Mike Rieder cautioned against all
of the programming being evidence-based since there may be emerging or promising
programs that have shown success but have not yet been evaluated.

Work Group Recommendation: Members adopted the DJJDP recommendation by
consensus (noting that it relates to Recommendations 19 and 20), with the following
       -Collaborate with other relevant agencies to develop vocational education and job
readiness/coaching opportunities for youth in the community and youth development
centers (e.g., community colleges, Department of Public Instruction, workforce
investment agencies) with the goal of developing formal agreements with measurable
outcomes (integration of services and sharing of clients).

Recommendation #2

DJJDP Recommendation: The Department will need to retrain and introduce new
training to increase staff competencies to properly prepare for working with older

        Dr. Anne-Marie Iselin suggested the insertion of skills training relative to basic
adolescent development. Dr. Buddy Howell recommended the addition of coordination
of services.

Work Group Recommendation: Members adopted the DJJDP recommendation by
consensus with the following addition to the rationale section: include adolescent
development training for staff, and include case management training (coordination of

Recommendation #3

DJJDP Recommendation: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils will need to nearly
double their program capacity to serve juveniles and provide program enhancements and
additions such as but not limited to: functional vocational programs (not just education,
but also on-the-job training and coaching, incentive programs for savings and equipment
purchasing, etc.), sex offender treatment, substance abuse and co-occurring disorder
treatment, parenting skills for the target population, community-based education,
structured day programs, transitional/reentry services, gang prevention/intervention,
residential placements and 4H (Head, Hearts, Hands, Health) programs.

        Al Deitch inquired as to whether the DJJDP had looked at existing programming
in other places. Sec. Hayes responded that the Department is interested in ideas from
other agencies, states, and other entities. Noting that treatment is costly, Mr. Savery
asked if the Department had considered utilizing the mental health/treatment systems that
are already in place. Ms. Price answered that the third most utilized Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council (JCPC) program is counseling. She further noted that JCPCs utilize
local mental health providers when they are available in their area. However, such
providers are not always available, especially in rural counties.

        Dr. Doreen Cavanaugh (an out-of-state presenter who had spoken earlier at the
Task Force meeting on mental health issues) asked if the state mental health/substance
abuse treatment agency would have recommendations to present to the Work Group,
since this recommendation could have ramifications to that agency. Ms. Pearce replied
that the Department of Health and Human Services would have recommendations when
they gave their presentation to the Work Group.

       Rep. Spaulding-Hughes urged the group to think “outside of the box.” She
suggested that organizations which are already established in most counties, such as 4-H,
and have proven themselves to have successful outcomes, should be added to the
services provided by the YDCs. Mr. Dennis followed up by inquiring about the
expansion of this recommendation beyond just the 4-H organizations, giving local
businesses as an example. Ms. Price related that there are often local business people
appointed to serve on their respective JCPCs.

Work Group Recommendation: Members adopted the DJJDP recommendation by
consensus, with the following change: expand designated membership to include post-
secondary education representatives on JCPCs.

Recommendation #4 (Note: This recommendation was changed from #5 to #4 by the

DJJDP Recommendation: In order to provide alternatives to detention and youth
development center commitment in the community, the Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils (JCPC) will need additional resources to meet the needs of the new population,
including but not limited to: shelter care, JCPC funded group homes, multipurpose

juvenile homes, wilderness camps, transitional housing and day reporting
centers/structured day programs (including, probation revocation centers or options in
combination with court services sanctions) with appropriate services. In addition, the
Department will need further tools to create alternatives to detention including but not
limited to: detention screening tools, global positioning systems (GPS) monitoring, and
residential placement options.

        Sec. Hayes speculated about combining this recommendation with the previous
one. Susan Richardson stated that she felt that it added more emphasis to have these
recommendations remain as separate ones. Mr. Dennis reminded the group that Dr.
Howell conducted an evaluation of JCPC programs. He recommended that goals should
be set up so that programs could be effectively evaluated and added that programs should
not only be monitored but should be evaluated on a regular basis. Ms. Price stated that
this issue would appear in a later recommendation. Ms Nantz suggested that this point be
tabled for a later discussion.

Work Group Recommendation: Members adopted the DJJDP recommendation by
consensus. The issue of creating capacity at DJJDP to evaluate JCPC programs was

Recommendation #5

DJJDP Recommendation: The Department will need a minimum of 20 additional staff
(field and central support office) to serve as consultants and monitors for the JCPC

       Sandra Reid noted the tight economic situation within state government but
questioned whether the stated number of 20 JCPC consultants in this recommendation
would be enough to meet the increase in the juvenile population. Ms. Nantz suggested
the addition of a “minimum of 20.”

        Karen Calhoun asked whether or not there should be a substantive reason(s) for
each recommendation. Dr. Iselin added that the Work Group might improve the selling
power of recommendations by inserting relevant numbers or percentage into the

Work Group Recommendation: Members adopted the DJJDP recommendation by
consensus. The issue of including data with each recommendation or data in general with
recommendations was tabled.

       Rep. Spaulding-Hughes stated that the next meeting for the Work Group is
scheduled for May 6 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Sec. Hayes noted that the public
hearing in Asheville pertaining to juvenile issues was scheduled for later in the day on
May 6 and questioned whether that meeting would impact the attendance for the next

meeting. Rep. Spaulding-Hughes asked how many of the members were planning to
attend. After observing only a few members who indicated that they would be attending
the public hearing, she advised that the Work Group meeting would still be held on May

       With no other business being noted, Rep. Spaulding-Hughes adjourned the
meeting at 3:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

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


To top