Download Zipped File WP 6.1 0620JJTM.ZIP 8,745 Bytes

Juvenile Justice Task Force

MINUTES OF THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE

June 20, 1997 - 1:00 p.m. - Room 303, State Capitol


Members Present:
    Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard, Senate Chair     Rep. Christine R. Fox, House Chair
    Sen. Joseph L. Hull
    Rep. John B. Arrington
    Rep. Steve Barth
    Rep. Blake D. Chard
    Hon. Andrew A. Valdez
    Mr. Russ Van Vleet
    
    

Members Absent:
    Rep. J. Brent Haymond
    Mr. Gary K. Dalton    
    Mr. David J. Jordan
    Ms. Robin Arnold Williams

Members Excused:
    Sen. Nathan C. Tanner

Staff Present:
    Ms. Chyleen A. Arbon,
     Research Analyst
    Ms. Esther D. Chelsea-McCarty,      Associate General Counsel
    Ms. Glenda S. Whitney,
     Secretary

    
     Note:    A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the         Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.

1.    Call to Order and Task Force Business - Chair Hillyard called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. He welcomed those present and introduced the new research analyst, Chyleen A. Arbon. He introduced Daniel D. Maldonado and Jean Nielsen, representing Mr. Dalton from the Division of Youth Corrections and Ms. Williams from the Department of Human Services. Chair Hillyard also recognized Suecarol Robinson at the meeting who will be representing Public Education.

     MOTION: Rep. Barth moved to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1997 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

2.    Review of 1997 General Session

    Ms. Esther Chelsea-McCarty, General Counsel, referred the task force to the mailing packet and reviewed the following legislation on Juvenile Justice that passed in the 1997 General Session:
    
    .     "Serious Habitual Youth Offender Program" (H.B. 69, 1997 General Session)
    .     "POST Certification of Youth Corrections Workers" (H.B. 177, 1997 General Session)
    .     "Sentencing Guidelines" (S.B. 25, 1997 General Session)
    .     "Juvenile Judges - Short Term Commitment of Youth" (S.B. 89, 1997 General Session)
    .     "Juvenile Court Powers" (S.B. 90, 1997 General Session)
    .     "Juvenile Court Recodification - Phase 2" (S.B. 134, 1997 General Session)

3.    Update on Implementation of Sentencing Guidelines

    Chair Hillyard asked for an overview regarding the Sentencing Guidelines that passed during the last session, and an update on what had transpired with the money that was appropriated.

    Mr. Michael R. Phillips, Deputy Juvenile Court Administrator, distributed a handout, "The Plan for Implementing the Probation Portion of Utah's Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines." He reviewed the handout indicating there will be 60 additional field probation officers, and the case loads will be less than 20 youth per probation officer. He reported that the number of youth on probation will gradually increase from 2,000 to 3,400 by March 1998. Mr. Phillips explained that probation will focus on the three prongs of the "balanced approach" model. They are as follows: a) community protection; b) accountability; and c) competency development.

    Mr. Phillips said that approximately 800 youth will qualify in the state supervision category of the sentencing guidelines. He reviewed the Juvenile Court's allocation of the funding for state supervision based on a simulation of the sentencing guidelines using the youth referred in 1996. He explained that collaboration with schools, law enforcement, and community youth programs will increase, including the use of Local Interagency Councils which follow the Families and Communities Together (FACT) model. He also noted that as the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program expands statewide, the conditions of probation will be more openly shared with schools and law enforcement. He emphasized that parents will become more a part of the supervision team, and more detailed assessments will be developed when probation begins as the basis for a comprehensive correctional plan.

    Mr. Edward McConkie, Executive Director, Utah Sentencing Commission, reported that the Sentencing Commission was continuing its coordinating role for the implementation of the ongoing review, tracking, and reporting on the success of the guidelines. He said that the subcommittee which created the presumptive standards had reconvened to discuss some major issues with the implementation of state supervision because it was a new disposition. In an attempt to provide some guidance, the Sentencing Commission adopted a mission statement that will be inserted into a manual that will accompany the guidelines. He said it will act as an instruction manual that communicates the intent and early intervention premise of the guidelines and provides definitions such as state supervision.

    Mr. Daniel D. Maldonado, Assistant Director, Division of Youth Corrections, distributed a "Matrix Funding" handout and briefed the task force on Youth Corrections' plans for the supervision population on the sentencing matrix funding. He reviewed the handout that identified

the supervision funds for Regions I, II, and III and explained the state supervision assumptions and program options for each of the regions. He indicated that Region I focused on Davis County North; Region II on Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties; and Region III included all other counties. He explained that the guiding philosophy will be the restorative justice model using a balanced approach of public safety, accountability, and skill development. State supervision will be viewed as a dynamic process, requiring optimum coordination between the Juvenile Court and the Division of Youth Corrections.

    Judge Valdez expressed concerns with the program options being different in all three regions. He spoke in support of statewide access, with the judge in Region II or III having the option of placing a juvenile in a structured residential discipline camp that was identified only in Region I of the handout.

    Chair Hillyard asked for another report before the session to update the task force on the progress of the programs and the matrix funding from Youth Corrections.
    
    Rep. Chard expressed concern with allocating money between the agencies for programs and questioned whether that was against the State Budgetary Act. Mr. Phillips explained that allocating money between agencies would be done by an interagency transfer. Rep. Chard said that without direction from the Legislature, an interagency transfer cannot be done and suggested looking into this issue. Chair Fox agreed with Rep. Chard and suggested the task force focus on interagency transfers of money along with identifying jurisdiction.
    
    Ms. Suecarol Robinson, Public Education, expressed concern that no money was put into the matrix for education. She said the children should be getting some type of education during the time they are out of school and on probation, or at home with no supervision. She said few school districts have facilities to deal with children once they are expelled from safe schools and that these are particularly the children who should be in school longer. Judge Valdez queried the idea of an internal sanction within the school system once the child is moved out of the class room to some alternative sight within the school itself as opposed to sending the child out on the street. Ms. Robinson said there are many alternatives that could work in the communities, but there was no provision for that in the school districts. She explained that the law states once a child is expelled from school, it is the parents' responsibility to initiate education for that child. Ms. Robinson also pointed out that many parents are unable to take responsibility for the child or may be inactive and unwilling.

    Chair Hillyard asked to be briefed on the process for which money is distributed to school districts. Ms. Robinson explained that the school districts are funded by the days of membership of a child plus growth. This means that if a child is registered in the school and attends 50 percent of the time, the school collects a full weighted pupil unit (WPU). Ms. Robinson pointed out that this is not an incentive for school districts to work with truants. She suggested funding on days

of attendance plus membership so there was some incentive for that school district to go out and pull truant children back into school. She explained that the funds are disbursed on the membership of the previous year's numbers taken on October 1. If more children have registered in school on October 1 than were there the previous year, the school would get those WPUs for the previous school year.

    Ms. Susan Kuziak, Utah Education Association, said it was true that children come in and out of the system, but explained that the reason the money stayed in the school districts by a certain time was there had to be firm commitments on purchases and staff. She said it may be worthwhile to think of some additional funds that are flexible to move to provide for children who should be simply expelled.

    Regarding the disbursement of funds to the programs, Chair Hillyard said there will have to be concessions made by all groups in determining how to use the money more effectively. He added that the task force was not going to solve public education funding other than highlighting it and making sure there was dialogue going on between the groups.

4.     Address Judge Arthur G. Christean's Paper - "Observations on The Juvenile Justice Task Force and State Supervision: Will Justice Be Helped or Hindered?"

    The Honorable Andrew A. Valdez briefed the task force on the memorandum of Judge Arthur G. Christean regarding justice in the juvenile courts. A copy of the paper was distributed for the task force to review. Judge Valdez responded to Judge Christean's observations stating that this raised some real issues but not new issues. He said the Board of Juvenile Court Judges agreed that these are valid issues, but not the most pressing issues that need to be dealt with at this time. They did not agree with the level of alarm that Judge Christean portrayed in his memo. Judge Valdez said as judges, they are all interested in outcomes and do have some responsibilities that go beyond what they do on the bench. He noted that Chief Justice Zimmerman had indicated that the juvenile and adult courts had changed over the last ten years with the number of programs and initiatives that judges are now responsible for pursuant to legislative acts and appropriations. Judge Valdez said it is essential to make the justice system more effective and more available to the public. Court is not just for the judges, it is a court that belongs to everyone. It has a shared common purpose and a shared concern for outcomes, and that concern is equally shared with government, schools, and law enforcement.

    Mr. Van Vleet recognized that the issues addressed were not new issues; however, he dismissed the observations of Judge Christean who had attended the Juvenile Justice Task Force meetings and had an opportunity then to bring up his concerns, but did not.

    Mr. McConkie received the memo and explained that the Sentencing Commission is considering some of the recommendations mentioned in the memo, specifically adding "state supervision" in statute.

    Chair Hillyard emphasized the importance of making the task force available for public comments, input on issues, and concerns. He said everyone has different views and should have ownership in what the task force accomplishes.
    
5.    Future Focus

    Chair Hillyard asked for recommendations from the task force on this year's focus. He suggested spending more time on the funding mechanism: how the money was being spent and how it could be done more effectively. He said there may be additional resources that need to be put into the system. He explained that Youth Corrections is about three million dollars over budget and the problem needs to be solved, recognizing it is not just a Youth Corrections problem but a system problem. He also suggested looking at the structure of the programs and said that NCSL and experts could be brought in to present ideas on what other states were doing.

    Chair Fox said that private providers had become a large part of the system and render a valuable service. She suggested looking into group homes and programs of the private providers. She said a lot of money was being spent in the state, and it was our responsibility to address the troubled youth, make the system fair and reasonable, and protect our local communities. She also suggested looking at a program that was pro-active and helpful for the troubled youth before they get to the point that they are placed in a facility. She said the youth could benefit from an employment program, vocational training program, apprentice program, agricultural program, or any program that would get them involved. She suggested exploring this area and inviting Dr. Susan Mirow to explain the ideas she uses in working with gang problems in inner-cities.

    Judge Valdez distributed a handout, "Utah Juvenile Justice Task Proposed Study Agenda," submitted by the judges of the Utah State Juvenile Court. He reviewed their suggestions for study which are as follows: a) evaluate philosophy, programs, and recidivism and costs of current juvenile justice system; b) child welfare issues; c) serious youth offender issues; d) safe schools versus unsafe neighborhoods; and e) review resource needs.

    Mr. Maldonado distributed a memorandum from Mr. Dalton that addressed the following recommendations for future focus: a) reorganization issues; b) fiscal impact and resources needed to operate the Division of Child and Family Services, the Division of Youth Corrections, and the Juvenile Court, and meet the needs of delinquent, abused, and neglected youth; c) correctional officer status; d) jurisdictional age of juveniles; and e) youth-in-custody funding.

    Chair Hillyard and Chair Fox will review the proposed study suggestions from the task force and work with staff in setting the agendas for future meetings.



6.     Future Meeting Schedule

    The Juvenile Justice Task Force decided to meet at 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. on the following calendar dates:
        .     July 18, 1997
        .     August 15, 1997
        .     September 26, 1997
        .     October 24, 1997
        .     November (to be scheduled)

7.     Adjournment

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



[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature