Juvenile Justice Task Force

guides the delivery of services. It encourages parents, communities, and public and private agencies to form interdisciplinary teams to develop, promote, and deliver child-focused, family- centered, community-based, and culturally-appropriate services which improve the health, safety, education, and economic well-being of children in Utah.

    Ms. Williams said that many communities have begun work on local plans for interagency services as endorsed by H.B. 231 which was passed in the 1996 Legislative Session. In order to develop and refine the process at the local and state level, the FACT Steering Committee has begun work with Carbon and Weber counties to develop their plans. The communities will assemble budgets of existing funds to support their plans and identify funding gaps.

    Ms. Williams explained the sharing of information between agencies and the protection of confidentiality. She identified the final legal opinion on confidentiality from the Governor which enhanced the sharing of information. She noted that the different agencies or units of government should be viewed as a combined, single unit. It is the intent of the legislature that the systems developed under this charter (FACT) require collaboration between existing state and local agencies in order to enhance their capacity to meet local community needs.

    Judge Valdez expressed concern that some principals are not notified when a juvenile from Youth Corrections is placed in their school. He said if this is a process of sharing information and coming together in a collaborative way, then the schools need to be involved and know who is being placed in their community and school system so they can have input in the FACT process.

    Sen. Hull said it was his understanding that in the 1995 Legislative Session it was put into statute that the schools would be notified of a placement. Mr. Dalton responded that the notification does go to the superintendent or principal of the school, but explained that the letter sometimes gets lost on the desk and its importance is not marked. He said one recommendation of the FACT Council was to put a bright colored cover sheet that states, "Protected Information for Your Eyes Only" so the principal will know the information is important and needs to be passed on.

    Judge Valdez expressed concern with information only going to the schools in the district where the youth is adjudicated. He suggested that the paper work should follow the youth if he or she receives a community-based placement outside the district.

    Chair Tanner said that action needs to be taken on this item and that notification files on the placement of a child should be shared with the school and community. He noted that the responsibility to facilitate this process was interagency and could be required under current

statute. He said this issue should be discussed to determine how FACT can follow up and meet the needs of the child.

    Rep. Fox expressed concern with a child who would like a fresh start but is marked as a violent person by the information distributed to the school.
    
    Sen. Hull asked if the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP) is the same type of program as FACT. Ms. Williams responded that it is similar in that it is interagency and interdisciplinary, but there are a couple of different entities involved such as more law enforcement involvement with SHOCAP than with FACT.

    Mr. Dalton said that SHOCAP is more of a sophisticated, technological model. Out of 150 youth targeted, there are only six or eight that actually meet the SHOCAP standards. He stressed that they often find that many school districts use this information to not serve youth. They use it to keep youth out of services and not let them into school based upon the Safe Schools Act or drug-free school zones.

    Judge Valdez said the purpose of sharing information is to establish this interdisciplinary team approach in dealing with the youth. The schools are currently not being utilized. The information needs to be shared with them so that they can be a part of the team that will try to turn this youth around.

    Ms. Williams concluded her presentation by reviewing the evaluation conducted by Utah State University which measured the effectiveness of FACT projects to ensure accountability to taxpayers and legislators. She also reviewed the legislative audit report which found the following: 1) the FACT initiative is operating as planned; 2) the gang prevention and intervention programs need better monitoring; and 3) the other at-risk programs are following legislative intent.

    Rep. Fox asked if these FACT services are available statewide and how a school becomes part of the at-risk program. Ms. Terry Johnson responded that the school districts originally chosen were Title 1 schools, which meant they had low academic scores and lower poverty levels. She said they began with those schools, but the program is now open to any school that would like to participate.

    Rep. Fox asked what the budget is for the FACT program. Ms. Williams reported that the budget is $5.2 million. She agreed to provide the task force with a detailed report on where the money goes and what is still needed to provide these services. She said their goal is to redirect existing resources in a better way.     


3.     Private Providers

    Mr. Gary K. Dalton, Director, Division of Youth Corrections, distributed a handout, "DYC Community Alternatives," from which he made his presentation. He said in DYC the private provider system not only makes up a considerable amount of placement opportunities, but also uses a significant amount of the budget. He said they look at DYC as a stool with five legs: detention services, long-term secure care services, observation and assessment, case management and parole, and the private provider system. Out of 1,100 youth, 600 are placed with a private provider, both in state and out of state.

    Mr. Dalton briefed the task force on who the private providers are, what they do, the explosive growth of providers and youth in the system, the cost differentials, and the accountability system. He reported that since 1995 the number of contracts had grown from 45 to approximately 60, which now place 586 youth in out-of-home care. Mr. Dalton presented an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of contracting for community-based residential services. He said the private provider system had been put together and developed over a number of years and had become responsive. He explained that the private providers are market driven and their focus is to provide quality service at an efficient cost.

    Mr. Dalton reviewed the budget, costs, and daily population of community placement since FY 1992. There was a 347 percent increase in costs, 191 percent increase in budget, and 246 percent increase in youth. He identified the Department of Human Services Office of Licensing as being responsible for licensing private provider programs that are contracted under the Division. He informed the task force on the program monitoring and the Division of Youth Corrections' responsibilities.

    Judge Valdez expressed concern with private providers' monitoring systems. He said they need to deal with the issue of public safety and accountability. He said there have been cases where he has refused to send a youth to a particular provider because of their inability to hold the youth.

    Mr. Glen Lambert, Executive Director, Odyssey House, distributed three handouts, "The Net Cost to the State of Caring for Youth in an Intensive Community Residential Placement," "Outcome Studies of Odyssey House," and "Relevant Outcome Studies of Juvenile and Substance Abuse Treatment." He explained that Odyssey House was an intensive community residential placement. It was a specialized program with the vast majority of the youth being serious substance abusers with high rates of abuse in their history. Odyssey House had been long-term providers to Youth Corrections and DCFS. He said they are a full service agency where there is schooling, vocational rehabilitation, and psychiatric, medical, individual, and group family therapy.

    Mr. Lambert addressed three issues: 1) advantages of private providers; 2) disadvantages of private providers; and 3) accountability and public safety of private providers. The main advantage of a private provider is cost. He said national studies indicate that private providers run more efficiently at a cost savings to the state. He reported that approximately one-third of the Odyssey House monies come from private funds and sources. The net cost to the State to care for a youth in an intensive community residential placement is 55 percent less expensive than secure care. Other benefits of private providers include: flexibility, competition, rapid mobilization, accountability, monitoring at arms length, creativity, specialization and decentralization of treatment, and outcome measurements.
        
    Mr. Lambert, addressing the issue of outcomes, said in the last five years while in treatment with Odyssey House, 100 percent of the youth had been crime free, drug free, and in school. In 19 years no crimes had been committed in neighborhoods where Odyssey had treatment programs. A follow-up study indicated that 100 percent of the youth were employed or in school, 50 percent completed high school, and 25 percent were in college.

    Judge Valdez said Mr. Lambert's points were well taken but stated that the issue to be addressed is the accountability and public safety component of the private provider. He said that that is what the public is demanding and should be the main focus in the balanced approach.

    Mr. Lambert said that public safety is an important issue to Odyssey House. He explained the process of screening youth, intensive supervision, monitoring drugs, service projects in the community, and teaching youth social skills and how to be good neighbors in the community. He concluded that private providers need to be in more of a partnership with the State.     

    Mr. Rodney B. Brown, Executive Director, Community Based Transitional Services, said they have slowly built a continuum of in-house care and identified having 30 proctor homes in the Salt Lake Valley and surrounding areas. They work primarily with Region 2 from Youth Corrections and DCFS. He explained that in December 1995, a 10-bed group home was established. He briefed the task force on their philosophy and their 3-phase program: 1) the orientation, assessment, and public safety phase; 2) the accountability phase; and 3) the transition phase to assess if the youth can be returned home.

    Judge Valdez asked if there had been any family-based therapy changes within the home so that when the youth is transitioned back home he does not regress within a couple of weeks. Mr. Brown responded that they attempt to work with the home and indicated this as being one of their emphases. They have clinical staff which can provide family therapeutic interventions for youth who are visiting home on the weekends. He said once the youth enters into a more advanced phase and there is more trust with him behaving in the community, they generally change the contract from just individual therapy to include family therapy at least twice a month.

    Mr. Brown indicated that having worked in the state system since 1977, he could identify a problem within the provider system. Some programs are coming in and trying to develop too rapidly and getting too large too fast. He said open ended contracting has allowed too many of the same types of programs to come into place such as the proctor care. It gets difficult to monitor and make sure that they are providing the safeguards that are needed. His recommendation to the task force was to review how contracting is done.

    Judge Valdez asked where the failure and break down might be when a juvenile goes through a program and then ends up returning. Mr. Brown responded that the family is irreparable at times and noted that reunification of the family and youth is not always in the youth's best interest. He said sometimes they have to build in some assertiveness with the youth to decide what is going to be best for him. They are trying to provide more independent skills with the youth so they can survive in their environment. He added that they can meet with the families, provide therapeutic interventions, try to get them to cooperate, but they cannot change the whole family structure in the time they have the youth.

    Mr. Van Vleet said after listening to the private providers and program directors, it had been pointed out that almost all providers, with a few exceptions, show success rates while the youth is in the program. He expressed concern with the failure being in the transition of the youth back home and would like the task force to deal with the issue of aftercare.

    Mr. Lambert suggested a transitional housing facility to go to after leaving the group home.

4.    Adjournment

     MOTION: Rep. Arrington moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.