Out-of-home Placement of Juvenile...

Legislative Audit DivisionState of Montana

Report to the Legislature

November 1999 Performance Audit

Out-of-home Placement of JuvenileOffenders

Department of Corrections

This report addresses out-of-home placement of juvenile offenders fundedthrough appropriations to the Department of Corrections. Findings andrecommendations cover the placement decision-making and fundingprocess.

Direct comments/inquiries to:Legislative Audit DivisionRoom 135, State CapitolPO Box 201705

99P-02 Helena MT 59620-1705

Help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in state government. Call the Fraud Hotline at 1-800-222-4446statewide or 444-4446 in Helena.

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE

Senator Linda Nelson, Vice Chair Representative Bruce Simon, ChairSenator Reiny Jabs Representative Beverly BarnhartSenator Ken Miller Representative Mary Anne GuggenheimSenator Barry "Spook" Stang Representative Dick HainesSenator Mike Taylor Representative Robert PavlovichSenator Jon Tester Representative Steve Vick

PERFORMANCE AUDITS

Performance audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division are designed to assess stategovernment operations. From the audit work, a determination is made as to whether agenciesand programs are accomplishing their purposes, and whether they can do so with greaterefficiency and economy. In performing the audit work, the audit staff uses audit standards setforth by the United States General Accounting Office.

Members of the performance audit staff hold degrees in disciplines appropriate to the auditprocess. Areas of expertise include business and public administration, statistics, economics,computer science, and engineering.

Performance audits are performed at the request of the Legislative Audit Committee which is abicameral and bipartisan standing committee of the Montana Legislature. The committeeconsists of six members of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives.

Room 135, State Capitol Building, PO Box 201705 Helena MT 59620-1705Phone (406) 444-3122 FAX (406) 444-9784 E-Mail [email protected]

LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION

Scott A. Seacat, Legislative Auditor Deputy Legislative Auditors:John W. Northey, Legal Counsel Jim Pellegrini, Performance AuditTori Hunthausen, IT & Operations Manager James Gillett, Financial-Compliance Audit

November 1999

The Legislative Audit Committeeof the Montana State Legislature

We conducted a performance audit of the process used for out-of-home placement of juvenile offenders. TheCommunity Corrections Division in the Department of Corrections is responsible for oversight of juvenile placementactivities. Judicial district youth courts and youth placement committees are also key participants in the process. Thisreport contains recommendations for improving the juvenile placement decision-making process. Written responsefrom the Department of Corrections is included at the end of the report.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of department staff during the audit.

Respectfully submitted,

“Signature on File”

Scott A. SeacatLegislative Auditor

Legislative Audit DivisionPerformance Audit

Out-of-home Placement of JuvenileOffenders

Department of Corrections

Members of the audit staff involved in this audit were Tom Cooper andMike Wingard.

Table of Contents

Page i

Appointed Administrative Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page v

Report Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page S-1

Chapter I - Introduction Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Audit Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Audit Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1Placement and Expenditure Information . . . . . . . . Page 2

Audit Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

Management Memorandums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4

Audit Follow-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4

Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

Chapter II - Background Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Juvenile Residential Placement Unit . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7Regional Financial Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

Juvenile Placement Funding and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . Page 8Regional Distribution of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8Placement May be In-state or Out-of-state . . . . . . . Page 9

Three In-state DOC Contracts . . . . . . . . . Page 9Out-of-state Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11DPHHS In-state Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11

Daily Rates for Youth Care Facilities . . . . . . . . . Page 12

Youth Court Probation is Starting Point for Juvenile Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12

Probation Referral and Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13Options Include Informal and Formal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13

Consent Adjustment is Informal . . . . . . . Page 14Formal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15Consent Decree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15Youth in Need of Intervention or Delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16

Youth Placement Committees Review Placement Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17

Table of Contents

Page ii

Placement Guidelines are Used by the YPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Primary and Secondary Recommendations are Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Department May Reject Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Youth Court Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18Formal Probation is an Option . . . . . . . . Page 20Disposition Can Require Placement . . . . . Page 20Custody Assigned to DOC . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21

Six-Month Placement Reviews Required . . . . . . . Page 21

Juvenile Placement Information for Fiscal Year 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22

Extended Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23Short Term Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24

Chapter III - JuvenilePlacement Process Process Meets Intent of Youth Court Act . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 27

Adjudication is Prerequisite to Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 28Adjudication May not be Necessary . . . . . . . . . . Page 29Statutory Ambiguity Adds to the Lack of Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29Court Resources Impacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29Urban Versus Rural Alternatives Influence Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29Pilot Project Encourages Use of Placement Funding for Intervention . . . . . . . . . Page 30Department Should Clarify Adjudication Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31Department Supports Need for Clarification . . . . . Page 31

Youth Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 32Assessments Help Determine Treatment Needs . . . Page 32YPCs Rely on Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33YPC Placement Review Process Should Include Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33Department Agrees with Need for ARMs Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34

Financial Support Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34Resolution Alternatives Include Joint Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35Compliance with Existing Statute Should Allow Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35

Table of Contents

Page iii

Is Statutory Revision Needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 36Department Supports Formalizing Funding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 36

Six-month Placement Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 37Purpose of Committees and Boards Differ . . . . . . Page 37Valid Reasons for Substituting Review Groups . . . Page 38Officers Proposed Local Flexibility for Reviews . . Page 38Department Wants to Assure Reviews are Complete and Eliminate Duplication . . . . . . Page 39

Chapter IV - Staff Rolesand Responsibilities Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41

Financial Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41Services are Extensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41Services Could be More Consistent . . . . . . . . . . Page 42Several Reasons for Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 43Work Emphasis and Priorities Should be Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 43Policy and Procedure Guidelines are Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 43Department to Revise Position Descriptions and Develop a Procedures Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 44

Juvenile Residential Placement Unit (JRPU) . . . . . . . . . . Page 44Current Priority is Placement Review . . . . . . . . . Page 44

Other Priorities include Contract Negotiation and Oversight . . . . . . . . . Page 45

Pilot Project Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 45Pilot Project Policies and Procedures Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 45JRPU Priorities Should Include Pilot Project Procedures and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . Page 46Department Proposes Developing a Work Plan as the First Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 46

Agency Response Department of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 49

List of Figures & Tables

Page iv

Figure 1 Formal or Informal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14

Figure 2 Consent Decree or Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16

Figure 3 Adjudication to Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19

Figure 4 Juvenile Placement and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22

Table 1 Budget and Expenditures(Fiscal Year 1997-98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8

Table 2 Regional Allocation of Placement Funding(Fiscal Year 1997-98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

Table 3 In-state DOC Contract Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 4 Private Provider Daily Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12

Appointed and Administrative Officials

Page v

Department of Corrections Rick Day, Director

Mike Ferriter, AdministratorCommunity Corrections Division

Sam Lemaich, Region I Administrator

Ron Alsbury, Region II, Administrator

Mike Gersack, Region III, Administrator

Pam Bunke, Region IV, Administrator

Gene Gemignani, Region V, Administrator

Loreen Barnaby, Region VI, Administrator

Report Summary

Page S-1

Introduction The Legislative Audit Committee requested a performance audit ofthe out-of-home placement of juvenile offenders funded throughappropriations to the Department of Corrections (DOC). TheJuvenile Residential Placement Unit (JRPU) in DOC’s CommunityCorrections Division and the department’s regional offices areresponsible for oversight of the juvenile placement process.

Background The Youth Court Act was established to prevent and reduce youthdelinquency through immediate, consistent, enforceable, andavoidable consequences. The juvenile correctional policy of thestate of Montana is to provide custody, assessment, care,supervision, treatment, education, rehabilitation, and work and skilldevelopment for youth in need of these services.

Juvenile PlacementFunding

For fiscal year 1997-98, the appropriated budget for juvenileplacements was $8,229,519. In addition, the contract for AspenYouth Alternatives facility operations was appropriated separatelyfor $2,200,000.

DOC staff administer contracts with three in-state providers and hasan agreement with the Department of Public Health and HumanServices (DPHHS) allowing placement of juvenile offenders withproviders already contracting with DPHHS for youth care. DOCprovides the funding for these placements. To access treatment notavailable in Montana, the DOC also administers contracts with out-of-state facilities. For fiscal year 1997-98, expenditures in thesethree categories were: DOC in-state -- $3,213,439, other in-stateplacements -- $3,461,290, and DOC out-of-state -- $3,437,680.

Juvenile PlacementInformation forFY 1997-98

We noted 727 of 1,346 (54 percent) of the youth placed during fiscalyear 1997-98 were placed out-of-home over 45 days. Total fundingfor this category of placements exceeded $8,995,000 of the$9,927,479 (90 percent) placement costs for the fiscal year.

For placements less than 45 days, we identified 768 youth placedduring the fiscal year. These youth accumulated a total cost of$1,072,194.

Report Summary

Page S-2

Process Meets Intent ofYouth Court Act

We conclude the juvenile placement decision-making processgenerally meets the intent of the Youth Court Act. Youth courtofficials, Youth Placement Committee (YPC) members, anddepartment staff are all involved in the process as required by theAct. These participants focused on three responsibilities: 1) processtimeliness, 2) placement appropriateness, and 3) fiscal control. However, ambiguities in statute and procedures caused placementdecision-making participants to informally revise procedures toaccommodate the needs of individual youth.

Access to Funding isRestricted

Using section 53-1-203, MCA, as the basis for their decision, DOCofficials issued an internal legal opinion to regional officialsrequiring adjudication as a “youth in need of intervention” or a“delinquent” to access juvenile placement funding. Thisrequirement results in more restrictive eligibility for use of thisfunding than in the past. We found many, but not all, youth courtofficials disagreed with this interpretation and indicated youth shouldhave access to placement funding through less formal proceedingssuch as consent adjustments or decrees.

In 1997, the legislature approved a pilot project to determinewhether allocating a portion of the placement budget to judicialdistricts would improve the utilization of available funding. Department officials indicated pilot project legislation eliminates theneed for adjudication in pilot-designated districts because DOC is nolonger administering the funds. As a result, DOC does notanticipate requiring adjudication in pilot districts, while requiring itin non-pilot districts.

Department Should ClarifyAdjudication Requirement

To address conflicts between judicial districts and the departmentregarding the use of placement funding, statutory clarification isneeded. The intent of the Youth Court Act should be clarified bythe 2001 Legislature to assure access to juvenile placement fundingwithout adjudication.

Report Summary

Page S-3

Assessments HelpDetermine TreatmentNeeds

Draft DOC policy indicates officers should use standardizedassessment tools to provide the YPC with consistent informationabout youth being considered for out-of-home placement. We notedsome officers decided not to use these tools, believing their timewith the youth, experience with other youth, and professionaljudgement provide the same results as a formal assessment. Existingdepartment policies are not specifically directive to youth courtprobation officers.

According to information from other states, assessments can be usedto help determine the type of intervention and/or treatment based onthe youth’s needs. Further, officials use assessments to helpdetermine what types of placement facilities and interventionalternatives are needed in the state. YPC members also rely on theresults of assessments to become more consistent in the placement ofyouth.

Revise Administrative Ruleto Require Assessments

The department should revise administrative rules to provide theauthority for the chairperson and/or the committee to requestassessments or delay proceedings until results are available forreview.

Financial SupportAlternatives

Section 41-5-122, MCA, requires the YPC to consider options forfinancial support of the youth’s placement. Probation officers andother YPC members expressed concern about how to resolve thefunding responsibility for a youth who has been or is currentlydesignated as a “youth in need of care” due to abuse, neglect,disability, or mental health issues. Their primary concern waswhether a youth should be adjudicated as a delinquent, because thecare/treatment provided previously through DPHHS funding did notor could not deter delinquent activity.

Most officers agreed these cases should be resolved at the lowestlevel to assure court activity and access to treatment are not delayed. Officers suggested resolution was more timely and effective whenthe YPC membership included management level staff from DOCand DPHHS. Additionally, we noted some judicial districts havedirected a joint-agency funding approach.

Report Summary

Page S-4

Compliance with ExistingStatute Should AllowResolution

Since statute requires the YPC to review financial support options,members should be examining pre-disposition reports to considerrelevant information and funding options. When the YPC does notreach consensus on funding, pursuit of resolution at a higher level ofauthority should be a DOC regional administrator responsibility. The department should formalize YPC procedures for resolvingpotential alternative funding cases and include them in training forYPC members, regional administrators, and financial specialists.

Six-Month PlacementReviews

Section 41-5-122(7), MCA, requires YPCs to “conduct placementreviews at least semiannually.” The purpose of these reviews is toevaluate resources which meet the needs of the youth based ontreatment recommendations of professionals while consideringfinancial support options. While most probation officers indicatedsome kind of six-month review was performed for their youth, wefound this process was not consistent across-the-state.

Foster Care Review Committees (FCRC) and Citizen Review Boards(CRB) are used in some communities because federal criteria alsorequires 6-month placement reviews to support payments such asMedicaid and Social Security benefits. Since many juvenileoffenders qualify for federal support payments and/or are in fostercare, both the FCRC/CRB and YPC have a statutory reviewrequirement. We noted the FCRCs/CRBs were used for juvenileoffenders because of the preference of the courts to work withmembers of FCRC/CRBs already reviewing placements of youthwho are not in trouble with the law.

Allow Local Flexibility forReviews

We found the consensus of most probation and parole officers was toallow judicial districts the flexibility to use either the YPC or aFCRC/CRB to assure complete reviews and eliminate duplication ofreviews. We recommend revising state law to allow an alternative tothe YPC.

Report Summary

Page S-5

Financial Specialists The focus of financial specialists is to evaluate funding alternativesfor out-of-home placements to maximize the coverage of GeneralFund juvenile placement appropriations. By verifying youtheligibility and determining if case managers applied for availablefinancial resources, financial specialists extend the department’sfunding. While the range of services provided by financialspecialists was extensive, we found the provision of these serviceswas inconsistent between DOC regions.

Financial specialist positions were established following the 1997legislative session and duties are still evolving. It also appearedofficers in the judicial district where the regional office and financialspecialist are co-located had more frequent contact. Further, thedepartment has not established formal guidelines to identifyfundamental duties and responsibilities. Finally, services providedby financial specialists have not been determined for pilot versusnon-pilot districts.

Work Emphasis andPriorities should beFormalized

Based on these differences, we noted financial specialists in someregions are not sure how much emphasis to place on any one type ofworkload, particularly when this work is at the expense of otherplacement duties. Financial specialists in all regions identifiedexisting workload backlogs and suggested there was a need toestablish guidelines for day-to-day priorities. While allowing forsome independence and creativity, duties and responsibilities shouldbe formalized to clarify the role of financial specialists.

Juvenile ResidentialPlacement Unit (JRPU)

The mission of the JRPU is to provide the most appropriateplacements with available resources. The unit manager’s definedduties include residential placement program development,monitoring placement services, and oversight of placement costs tomaximize funding resources.

Report Summary

Page S-6

Current Priority isPlacement Review

We found the current workload priority is after-the-fact review ofplacements, including YPC referral forms, court orders, andsix-month review documentation. The second workload priorityinvolves negotiating placement contracts with private providers. The next priority is oversight of contract facilities through review ofreports and/or on-site visits. Additionally, JRPU staff have beeninvolved with monitoring of the two pilot project districts.

JRPU Priorities ShouldInclude Pilot ProjectProcedures and Oversight

The expansion of the pilot approach will significantly increase thenumber of questions and problems compared to the two districtscurrently involved. Probation officers expressed concern about avariety of operating procedures such as: allocation of funding,payment processing, over-budget conditions, intervention funding,and impact of correctional facility placements.

The department should review current and anticipated workload forthe JRPU and establish priorities which include development ofstandard procedures for operations and oversight of an expandedpilot project.

Chapter I - Introduction

Page 1

Introduction The Legislative Audit Committee requested a performance audit ofthe out-of-home placement of juvenile offenders funded throughappropriations to the Department of Corrections (DOC). Thedepartment oversees placement of juvenile offenders in bothcommunity-based and secure facilities. The Juvenile ResidentialPlacement Unit (JRPU) in the Community Corrections Division andthe department’s regional offices are responsible for oversight of thejuvenile placement process.

Throughout this report, references to juveniles mean youth who havecommitted offenses resulting in further involvement in the juvenilejustice system. Offenses range from status offenses such as truancyor illegal use of alcohol to misdemeanors and felonies.

Audit Objectives We established three objectives to meet the audit requirement:

- Provide the legislature information on juvenileplacement criteria and DOC juvenile placementprogram activities.

- Examine the process used by youth courts, youthplacement committees and the department to selectprivate out-of-home placement for juveniles.

- Provide the legislature relevant information on privateout-of-home juvenile placements such as the number ofjuvenile offenders placed, length of stay, and cost.

Audit Scope The scope of this performance audit included:

- Examining division staff oversight roles andresponsibilities for out-of-home placement in privatefacilities.

- Reviewing the roles and responsibilities of youth courtofficials and youth placement committee membersregarding out-of-home placement in private facilities.

- Examining juvenile placement and case files to verifycompliance with statutory/rule criteria.


Page 2

- Examining out-of-home placement and fundinginformation for in-state and out-of-state juvenileplacements for fiscal year 1997-98.

- Reviewing reports from other states in the process ofchanging their emphasis on juvenile justice fromresidential placement to community intervention.

- We did not examine the quality of treatment and careprovided at residential treatment facilities.

- The department operates two secure youth correctionalfacilities: Pine Hills (male) and Riverside (female)Youth Correctional Facilities (YCF). The audit did notaddress placement to these facilities.

Placement and ExpenditureInformation

To compile placement and expenditure information, we examineddata for fiscal year 1997-98 because it provided the most current andcomplete data available. Placement data entry for fiscal year 1998-99 (at the time of our audit) was not complete because ofbilling, payment, and data processing entry delays. The departmentuses the Child and Protective Services System (CAPS) to processpayments for placements to private providers. Using CAPS dataalong with placement and case file information, the departmentdeveloped an electronic spreadsheet to track all juvenile placementactivities and costs.

This spreadsheet reflects transactions/payments for services such astherapy, counseling, and medical care, as well as fundamental datasuch as length of stay, daily facility rates, and total cost of individualplacements. By using this database, the department compilessummary information to reflect state and regional budget balancesand to project expenditures during the year. Throughout our report,references to fiscal year 1997-98 placement information are based onthe department’s electronic juvenile placement spreadsheet

(unaudited).


Page 3

Audit Methodologies To address our audit objectives we:

- Reviewed and documented juvenile placement decision-making statutory criteria (Title 41, chapter 5, MCA),Administrative Rules of Montana (section 20.9.100, etseq, ARM), and DOC policies and procedures.

- Interviewed Community Corrections Divisionpersonnel, regional staff in all 6 DOC regions, youthcourt/probation officials in 12 of 21 judicial districts,and youth placement committee members in the sixregions.

- Reviewed a judgmental sample of 5 DOC juvenileplacement files/documentation in three regions (15total) to determine department, youth court/probation,and youth placement committee compliance withjuvenile placement processing statutory/rule criteria.

- Examined DOC juvenile placement programappropriation, budget, and expenditure information forfiscal year 1997-98 to compile information such as thenumber of juveniles placed, types of placements, lengthof stay, and cost of placements.

ManagementMemorandums

During the course of the audit, we sent management memorandumson two issues:

- CAPS Training. The majority of the probation andparole officers interviewed indicated both infrequentuse and system complexity result in incomplete and/orlate entry of data into CAPS by some officers. Financial specialists in some regions developed informal“how to” training documents for case managers(probation and parole) to help resolve these problems. The department should examine options for establishingan on-going approach to training officers to ensuremore effective use of CAPS.

- Aftercare Alternatives. Based on discussion withprobation and parole officers, we identified concernswith the quality of private provider aftercare services. According to the department's contract with theprovider, aftercare should include individualized


Page 4

supervision and treatment services. Officers indicatedthe provision of treatment was not consistent across-the-state. Officers suggested an alternative would be forprobation officers to assume aftercare responsibilitiesand receive the funding currently given to the privateprovider. The department has revised the currentcontract to allow for aftercare alternatives.

Compliance We found the department generally in compliance with theregulatory requirements for the juvenile placement process. InChapter III, we address concerns about compliance with the statutoryrequirement for six-month review of juvenile offenders in out-of-home placements.

Audit Follow-up Since October 1997, the department has monitored a placementbudget pilot project with Judicial District 1 (Helena) and JudicialDistrict 16 (Miles City). Each district was allocated funding by thedepartment and provided an opportunity to manage all aspects ofjuvenile placements. In the other districts, the department retainedcontrol of placement funding. The project was designed to test theoutcome of local control of appropriated placement funding in anurban and a rural judicial district.

Both districts submitted preliminary reports which indicate the pilotprojects stayed within DOC-established judicial district budgetallocations. The reports also indicate these two districts increasedthe use of community-based programs. The 1999 Legislatureexpanded the pilot project approach for up to ten more judicialdistricts in the 2000-2001 biennium. In Chapters III and IV, wediscuss issues related to the pilot project approach. Ourrecommendations are intended to improve the current placementdecision-making process.

The pilot project approach to funding out-of-home placements couldsignificantly impact the juvenile justice system in Montana asresources shift from state to local control. Potentially, ascommunities develop local intervention programs, the moreexpensive long term out-of-home placements will decrease. As aresult of pilot project expansion and these anticipated processchanges, we recommend delaying the normal follow-up to this audit.


Page 5

Instead of conducting follow-up audit work twelve months after theinitial audit, we propose scheduling follow-up in approximately twoyears, and including a review of the impact of the pilot projectapproach.

Report Organization The remainder of this report is organized as follows: - Chapter II, Background.- Chapter III, Juvenile Placement Process. - Chapter IV, Staff Roles and Responsibilities.

Chapter II - Background

Page 7

Introduction The Youth Court Act was enacted by the legislature to prevent andreduce youth delinquency through immediate, consistent,enforceable, and avoidable consequences. The Act is intended toassure a program of supervision, care, rehabilitation, detention,competency development, community protection, and restitution. The juvenile offender correctional policy of the state of Montana isto provide custody, assessment, care, supervision, treatment,education, rehabilitation, and work and skill development for youthin need of these services.

In this chapter, following a discussion of funding and expenditures,we present an overview of the juvenile placement decision-makingprocess and funding procedures. Our examination of the processincludes the decision-making steps beginning with a youth courtprobation officer’s identification of the potential need for an out-of-home placement. We discuss procedures used by youth courtofficials, youth placement committees, and department staff toprovide placement services.

Juvenile ResidentialPlacement Unit

The Juvenile Residential Placement Unit (JRPU) in the CommunityCorrections Division oversees the placement process and funding forout-of-home placement for juvenile offenders. The unit’s mission isto provide the most appropriate, least restrictive placement fordelinquent youth in the state within the available resources. TheJRPU goal is to develop a system of resources to support andstrengthen the youth court system.

Regional FinancialSpecialists

Following authorization by the 1997 Legislature, the departmentestablished financial specialist positions in each region responsiblefor verifying access to financial resources to pay for a youth’splacement. Funding sources which must be examined include:parental contribution and insurance capability, child supportpayments, Supplemental Security Insurance and Social SecuritySurvivor’s Benefits, Social Security IV-E, school/special educationfunding, Medicaid, and other state-funded sources (mental health,disabilities, etc.). Review and verification by financial specialistsinvolves researching state systems such as TEAMS (The EconomicAssistance Management System) and SEARCHS (System of


Page 8

Appropriation Category Budget Expenditures

Juvenile Placements $ 8,229,517 $7,738,074

Aspen Contract 2,200,000 2,189,405

Total $10,429,517 $9,927,479

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division fromdepartment records (unaudited).

Table 1

Budget and Expenditures(Fiscal Year 1997-98)

Enforcement and Recovery of Child Support), as well as contactingparents and supporting agencies to determine specific eligibility forthe various funding resources.

Juvenile PlacementFunding andExpenditures

For fiscal year 1997-98, the appropriated budget for juvenileplacements was $8,229,517. In addition, the funding for a contractfor Aspen Youth Alternatives, an alternative care program, facilityoperations was appropriated separately for $2,200,000. Totalexpenditures for juvenile placements for the year were $9,927,479. The following table summarizes DOC out-of-home placement budgetand expenditures for fiscal year 1997-98.

Regional Distribution ofFunding

Annually, the department allocates appropriated out-of-homeplacement funding among the six DOC regions. For fiscal year1997-98, the allocations were based on the number of at-risk youthin each region. Prior to making the regional allocations, thedepartment subtracts funding from the total juvenile placementappropriation to pay for DOC contracts discussed in the next section. A total of $6,803,695 was allocated to the regions. Table 2 shows


Page 9

Region Allocation

I Missoula $ 951,254

II Helena 1,637,156

III Great Falls 1,502,032

IV Kalispell 1,728,218

V Billings 985,035

Total $ 6,803,695

Source: Compiled by the Legislative AuditDivision from departmentrecords.

Table 2

Regional Allocation of Placement Funding(Fiscal Year 1997-98)

the regional budget allocation of placement funding for fiscal year1997-98. (Region VI was established in fiscal year 1998-99.)

Placement May be In-stateor Out-of-state

Juvenile placement program staff identify resources which may usedby judicial district probation officers and courts, as well asdepartment juvenile parole officers to place juveniles. DOC staffadminister contracts with three in-state providers and various out-of-state providers. The Department of Public Health and HumanServices (DPHHS) administers contracts with other in-state providersestablished for DPHHS youth in need of care.

Three In-state DOCContracts

The department contracts with three in-state providers for juvenileoffender services: Aspen Youth Alternatives (AYA), Life Skills, andMontana Thresholds for Change. AYA is based in Boulder nearRiverside Youth Correctional Facility (YCF). AYA includes a backcountry experience as part of its four-phase program. AYA’s four


Page 10

(Fiscal Year 1997-98)

FacilityDailyRate Expenditures Placements

Aspen $147.00 $2,189,405 193

Life Skills 115.00 301,959 44

Thresholds 199.00 722,075 26

Total $3,213,439 263

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Divisionfrom department records (unaudited).

Table 3

In-state DOC Contract Facilities

phases can last a total of 170 days. Department records indicate 193youth were placed at AYA during fiscal year 1997-98.

Life Skills, a 90-day program, is located in Butte and teachesjuvenile offenders skills necessary for independent living. LifeSkills placements totaled 44 youth during fiscal year 1997-98.

Montana Thresholds for Change is located in Deer Lodge andprovides a secure care facility for juvenile sex offender treatment. Department planning indicates the sex offender treatment capabilitywill be re-established at Pine Hills YCF in early calendar year 2000. The continued need for a Thresholds contract will be evaluated atthat time. A total of 26 youth were placed at Thresholds duringfiscal year 1997-98.

For fiscal year 1997-98, expenditures for these three contractprograms were $3,213,439. Table 3 summarizes the negotiateddaily rates, expenditures and juvenile placements for the three DOCcontract facilities.


Page 11

Out-of-state Contracts To access treatment not available in Montana, the departmentadministers contracts with a variety out-of-state facilities. Out-of-state placement of a juvenile offender occurs when: 1) in-statefacilities cannot provide the services needed, or 2) in-state facilitiesare not willing to accept the youth into their program. A directoryof treatment facilities developed and maintained by the departmentidentifies 35 out-of-state facilities in states such as North Dakota,Texas, Utah, and Washington.

The department has maintained contracts with approximately onethird of the out-of-state facilities in the directory. These contractsidentify specific therapeutic and residential treatment services andestablish daily cost rates for Montana youth. The out-of-statecontracts are negotiated to assure an availability of services atestablished rates, but do not obligate the department to placing aspecific number of juveniles. The department’s spreadsheet indicates$3,437,680 was expended for out-of-state placements in fiscal year1997-98. Out-of-state funds are not budgeted separately from otherjuvenile placement funding. Out-of-state residential placementfunding supported 148 youth during fiscal year 1997-98.

Recently, the department decided to reduce the use of negotiatedout-of-state contracts and save time by using individual placementagreements completed at the time of the placement.

DPHHS In-state Contracts DOC provides the funding for placements in DPHHS contractedfacilities on a case by case basis. The department’s directory ofDPHHS contracted treatment facilities in Montana identifies 63providers ranging from short term shelter care services, whichprovides intervention to allow for resolution of juvenile issues, totherapeutic group homes and residential treatment facilities, whichcan provide specialized counseling, treatment, and security. Thesein-state contracts accounted for $3,461,290 in expenditures for fiscalyear 1997-98, and included 499 youth in residential treatment andgroup homes. In addition, 695 youth were placed in shelter care and106 in foster care using juvenile placement funds.


Page 12

(Fiscal Year 1997-98)

Facility Type Daily Rate

Shelter Care $61.00-$85.00

Group Homes $43.00-$113.00

Therapeutic Foster Care $55.00-$104.00

Maternal Programs $115.00

Therapeutic Group Homes $55.00-$182.00

Residential Treatment $67.00-$240.00

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division fromthe department’s Youth Services ResidentialPlacement Resources Directory.

Table 4

Private Provider Daily Rates

Daily Rates for Youth CareFacilities

Daily rates for the DPHHS contract and out-of-state private facilitiesvary depending on the services provided. Some facilities establish abase cost for treatment separate from food and lodging; othersestablish a single rate, then add for specialized services such asindividual versus group therapy. Table 4 identifies the range ofdaily rates for the primary types of placements used for juveniles.

Youth Court Probationis Starting Point forJuvenile Placement

Statute requires the establishment of youth courts within eachjudicial district and at least one judge is designated as a youth courtjudge. There are several districts with multiple youth court judges;the judgeship either rotates or there is a designated chief youth courtjudge. Youth court judges appoint probation officers responsible forsupervision of juvenile offenders. Probation is the starting point forjuveniles entering the juvenile justice system.


Page 13

Probation Referral andInquiry

Typically, law enforcement officers make referrals to youth courtprobation officers. Parents and school officials may also refer youthto probation officers. Upon referral, probation officers determinethe need for investigation and/or intervention. The extent ofsupervision depends on the probation officer’s assessment of parentor guardian ability to control the youth’s behavior.

Options Include Informaland Formal Proceedings

The probation officer’s review and investigation can result ininitiation of either informal or formal proceedings (see figure 1,shaded areas). An informal proceeding allows intervention by theprobation officer, without involving the youth in courthearings/appearances. The informal process can also result inimmediate release, with or without follow-up probation supervision. A formal proceeding is initiated through referral to the countyattorney who decides whether to file a petition to the court. Figures1 through 4 reflecting the juvenile placement process were compiledby the Legislative Audit Division.

Juvenile Placement Process

Probation Officer Review

ConsentAdjustmentIntervention

County Attorney

Files Petition

ConsentDecree

CourtAdjudication

YPCReview

DOC RegionReview

CourtDisposition

JuvenileResidentialPlacement

DOC-ProviderPayments

YPC 6-monthReview

PlacementComplete


Page 14

Figure 1Formal or Informal Proceedings

Consent Adjustment isInformal

If the probation officer proceeds informally, the youth may beplaced on probation through the use of a consent adjustment. This isa contract, signed by the youth, parents/guardian, and probationofficer, requiring the youth to adhere to specific conditions. Theconsent adjustment includes conditions such as officer contactfrequency, curfews, peer association, counseling, and schoolattendance.


Page 15

Other community-based intervention or diversion techniquesemployed by probation officers include: crisis intervention, sheltercare, therapeutic counseling, chemical dependency treatment, andassistance in applying for job skills or vocational training programs. These requirements may be included in a consent adjustment. Historically, intervention funding is a combination of state and localresources, as well as federal grants. For example, the departmenttypically funds shelter care, the community could fund a local crisisintervention program, and the youth may qualify for federal fundingfor a chemical dependency program. In Chapter III, we discuss theuse of consent adjustments for out-of-home placements using DOCjuvenile funding.

Formal Proceedings If the case is referred to a county attorney by a probation officer, thecounty attorney determines whether to proceed with adjudication. To pursue adjudication, a petition is filed and a court hearing date isestablished which may include witness testimony, usually by lawenforcement and probation officers. If the court decides to proceedwith adjudication, a date is established for the youth’s courtappearance before the judge.

Consent Decree A youth may avoid adjudication court proceedings by agreeing to aconsent decree. A consent decree is a contract between the youthand the court signed by the judge, youth, parents or guardian, andprobation officer. Consent decrees establish conditions similar toconsent adjustments. However, failure to adhere to consent decreeconditions is a violation of a court order and can be considered adelinquent offense. Again, these requirements may be fundedthrough a combination of state, local, and federal resources. Theuse of consent decrees for out-of-home placements funded by DOCis also addressed in Chapter III.

Adjudication If a consent decree is not used, the youth, parent or guardian, andtheir legal counsel must be present for an adjudication hearingbefore the youth court judge (see figure 2, shaded areas). At thehearing, evidence is presented by the county attorney or arepresentative to determine whether the case is dismissed or whetherthe youth is judged delinquent or in need of intervention.




County Attorney

Files Petition

ConsentDecree

CourtAdjudication

YPCReview

DOC RegionReview

CourtDisposition



YPC 6-monthReview

PlacementComplete


Page 16

Figure 2Consent Decree or Adjudication

Youth in Need ofIntervention or Delinquent

Typically, juveniles are classified by the court as a youth in need ofintervention or a delinquent youth when placed out-of-home. Theterm "youth in need of intervention" applies to a juvenileadjudicated by the court who commits an offense or offensesprohibited by law, which if committed by an adult would notconstitute a criminal offense. This includes violation of state lawregarding alcoholic beverages and behavior such as running awayfrom home or habitual truancy. "Delinquent youth" applies to ajuvenile adjudicated by the court who committed an offense, which


Page 17

if committed by an adult would constitute a criminal offense. Adelinquent youth can include a juvenile who was placed on probationas a youth in need of intervention and violated a condition of theprobation. When a youth commits offenses which could lead toadjudication as a delinquent youth, the court has the discretion toclassify the youth "in need of intervention" instead.

If the youth pleads innocent at the adjudication hearing, the youthmay request a judge or jury trial. Assuming a guilty plea/verdict atthe adjudication hearing, a date for the disposition hearing isscheduled. However, at the discretion of the court, the dispositionhearing may immediately follow the adjudication decision.

During adjudication the court indicates whether out-of-homeplacement should be a consideration based on review of theprobation officer pre-disposition report. If so, the local youthplacement committee becomes involved in the process.

Youth PlacementCommittees ReviewPlacementRecommendation

According to section 41-5-121, MCA, when the court is consideringjuvenile out-of-home placement, a five-person Youth PlacementCommittee (YPC), appointed by DOC, is required to reviewplacement appropriateness and make a recommendation to the DOC. YPCs review all relevant information including availableplacement/intervention resources, treatment recommendations, andfunding alternatives. YPC membership includes representativesfrom DOC, DPHHS, youth court probation, the mental healthprofession, a youth services provider, and the school district.

The youth's case file and information relating to placement options,such as a pre-disposition report, evaluations, or school reports, arecompiled by the probation officer and presented to the YPC. Placement options identified by the probation officer includealternatives such as foster family homes, therapeutic group homes,private residential treatment facilities, or state youth correctionalfacilities. DOC regional financial specialists coordinate withprobation officers to verify information accuracy for each fundingresource. The resulting information is available to the YPC and/orthe regional administrator to address the cost implications ofplacement options.


Page 18

Placement Guidelines areUsed by the YPC

YPCs use the department’s Montana Placement Guidelines to helpdetermine the appropriate level of a juvenile placement. Theguidelines establish point criteria for the type of offense committed,history of offenses, and any mitigating factors such as damage toproperty or injury to victims. The number of points assessed helpsidentify the placement options. Ultimately, to determine aplacement recommendation, the committee considers the intent ofthe Youth Court Act which is to place youth in the least restrictivesetting meeting the identified treatment needs.

Primary and SecondaryRecommendations areReviewed

Based on their assessment of available information and discussionswith probation officers, YPCs make a primary and secondaryplacement recommendation to DOCs regional administrators. Regional administrators are responsible for approving a placementand authorizing payments to providers for juveniles placed out-of-home. If either the primary or secondary YPC recommendation isacceptable, regional staff formally advise the YPC and the court oftheir decision.

Department May RejectRecommendations

If the regional administrator rejects both of the committee’srecommendations, the department is required by rule to notify theYPC in writing of the reasons for rejecting the recommendation andmust determine an appropriate placement for the youth. Within 72hours after making a decision regarding placement or change ofplacement, the department is required to notify the youth court ofthe decision.

Youth Court Disposition Disposition evidence is presented to the court to determine the mostappropriate disposition benefiting the youth while protecting society. Disposition evidence is typically presented in the form of a socialhistory or pre-disposition report. The report is prepared andpresented by the probation officer and supported by reports ortestimony of parents, school officials, social workers, and mentalhealth professionals. The youth and legal counsel are provided anopportunity to present testimony on the youth's behalf. In the pre-disposition report, the probation officer recommends whether theyouth should be placed on probation, identifies probation conditions,and/or indicates if out-of-home placement and treatment isappropriate. For out-of-home placements, pre-disposition reports




County Attorney

Files Petition

ConsentDecree

CourtAdjudication

YPCReview

DOC RegionReview

CourtDisposition



YPC 6-monthReview

PlacementComplete


Page 19

Figure 3Adjudication to Disposition

usually reflect the placement recommended by the probation officerto the YPC. The recommendation of the YPC, which is reviewedand approved by the regional administrator, is considered by thecourt during the disposition hearing. Figure 3 (see shaded areas)shows the placement process as a youth moves from courtadjudication to disposition.


Page 20

Formal Probation is anOption

The courts can retain custody of a youth and establish formal proba-tionary periods with specific conditions of probation. The youth issupervised by the probation officer during the formal probationaryperiod. The conditions of court-ordered probation are similar tothose in consent adjustments and consent decrees, but areincorporated into the court’s disposition order. In addition toprobationary conditions, the court disposition can specify placementof the youth into a community setting, such as a parent's home, afoster family home, or group home.

Violations of court orders can result in contempt of court charges,another hearing, and a court declaration of the youth's delinquencyif previously adjudicated a youth in need of intervention.

Disposition Can RequirePlacement

If the court agrees with an out-of-home placement recommendationfrom the YPC and approved by the regional administrator, adisposition court order is issued. Using the order as authority, theprobation officer makes the placement arrangements. When theplacement is for foster care, group home, or a residential treatmentfacility, the probation officer prepares the formal applications foracceptance by the facility. This includes filing the documentation toreceive federal or state assistance funds such as Medicaid,Supplemental Security Income, or Supplemental Security Benefits.

The probation officer may contact the facility and prepare most ofthis documentation prior to the YPC meeting, because the committeeand department officials want assurance the recommended placementoptions are viable, relative to a youth's eligibility and acceptance byprivate providers. The probation officer, as the case manager, isalso responsible for making the appropriate entries into CAPS toassure system tracking and financial payment controls. Finalprobation officer arrangements include transporting the youth to thefacility.


Page 21

Custody Assigned to DOC Based on the youth's criminal history and probation officerrecommendations, the judge may assign custody to DOC forplacement in an appropriate setting. If the court determines theyouth is a serious juvenile offender, disposition may includeplacement in a secure facility. The court may commit seriousjuvenile offenders to the department for placement in Pine Hills(males) or Riverside (females) YCFs, or in private residential treat-ment facilities offering secure care. When placed in a privatefacility, DOC juvenile placement funding is used. For DOC securefacilities, juvenile placement funding is not used; the departmentreceives a separate appropriation for operation of the YCFs.

When the court commits a juvenile to the department, casemanagement may be transferred from probation to a DOC juvenileparole officer. Juvenile parole officers are also responsible forsupervision of youth paroled from state youth correctional facilities. If these youth are later placed in out-of-home treatment facilities,department parole officers remain responsible for case managementand juvenile placement funding is used.

Six-Month PlacementReviews Required

Section 41-5-122(7), MCA, requires YPCs to conduct placementreviews at least semi-annually for all youth in extended placements. Similar to initial placements, YPCs are responsible for reviewing allrelevant information including available resources, treatmentrecommendations, and funding alternatives to determine if continuedplacement or a more appropriate placement is warranted. FollowingYPC review and referral, the regional administrator is responsiblefor deciding to continue placement and funding for the youth. If theyouth completes the placement, supervision is retained by the casemanager until the youth is released by the court (probation youth) ordischarged by the department (parole youth).

Figure 4 summarizes (see shaded areas) the final steps in the juvenileplacement process.




County Attorney

Files Petition

ConsentDecree

CourtAdjudication

YPCReview

DOC RegionReview

CourtDisposition



YPC 6-monthReview

PlacementComplete


Page 22

Figure 4Juvenile Placement and Review

Juvenile PlacementInformation for FiscalYear 1997-98

For fiscal year 1997-98, there were 1,346 juveniles involved inDOC-funded placement and/or treatment activities.


Page 23

EXTENDED PLACEMENTS

Cost for fiscal year 1997-98: $5,783,738Average cost per youth for fiscal year 1997-98: $12,465Average cost per youth per day: $71.05Number of placement days for fiscal year 1997-98: 81,408Average number of placement days per youth: 175.5

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from departmentrecords.

Extended Placements To determine residential placement activity, we sorted the DOCjuvenile placement spreadsheet to identify the extended placemententries in private provider facilities. For our review, we definedextended placement as 45 days and over because state law requires aYPC placement review if a youth is placed out-of-home for 45 daysor more. We initially excluded the three in-state contract placements(AYA, Thresholds, and Life Skills), because expenditures and datasuch as length of stay are tracked separately for these contracts. DOC contract facility information is included in the discussion ofthese facilities on pages 9 and 10. We identified 464 extendedplacements for fiscal year 1997-98. This list includes youth inshelter care over 45 days. We compiled the following informationbased on these 464 youth.

We were aware youth could spend over a year in placements andnoted the spreadsheet included youth placed for more than 365 daysat daily rates over $200/day. The extended placement list includes51 youth in placement over 300 days for fiscal year 1997-98. Basedon our review, the highest cost youth for fiscal year 1997-98 wasplaced for 342 days at $260 per day, totaling $88,000. Since thespreadsheet provides data for the number of days and costs frominitial placement, we also noted 8 youth were in placement over 800days and 4 additional youth were over 900 days. One youth was inplacement for 983 days accumulating $165,000 in total cost by theend of fiscal year 1997-98.


Page 24

SHORT TERM PLACEMENTS

Average cost per youth for fiscal year 1997-98: $1,396Average cost per youth per day: $ 42Average number of placement days per youth: 33.3

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from departmentrecords.

SHELTER CARE

- 7 separate placements during a 7-month period for a total of 106days and a cost of $6,500.



When we combine the data compiled for extended placements withdata for the three DOC in-state contracts, we noted 727 of 1,346 (54percent) of the youth placed during fiscal year 1997-98 were longterm (over 45 days). Total funding for this combined category ofplacements exceeded $8,995,000 of the $9,927,479 (90 percent)placement costs for the fiscal year.

Short Term Placement To examine information associated with youth in placements lessthan 45 days (short term), we identified 768 youth placed during thefiscal year. These youth accumulated 25,560 placement days and atotal cost of $1,072,194. Based on this information, we determinedthe following:

The minimum length of stay for a youth is one day at a shelter carefacility. Our review identified examples of shelter care placementsfor individual youth exceeding 45 days such as:

We noted these short term placement examples included youthinvolved in a variety of juvenile offenses, frequent status offenses,


Page 25

whose home environment did not provide an adequate level ofsupervision. Short term shelter care facilities were used as anintervention alternative to provide time to find a better placementsuch as foster care, to resolve the supervision issue, or to determinethe need for extended treatment.

Chapter III - Juvenile Placement Process

Page 27

- Seek legislation regarding the need for adjudication toaccess juvenile placement funding.

- Revise administrative rules to establish procedures thatassure results of youth assessments are available toYPCs.

- Formalize YPC operating procedures to outline theprocess for resolving placement funding issues.

- Seek legislation to allow alternatives to the YPC forconducting the six-month placement reviews.

Process Meets Intent ofYouth Court Act

Chapter II explained the juvenile placement decision-making processbased on our examination of statutory and rule criteria, participantinterviews, and observations. We conclude the process generallymeets the intent of the Youth Court Act. Youth court officials,youth placement committee (YPC) members, and department staffare all involved in the process as required by the Act. We notedthese participants focused on three primary responsibilities:timeliness of the process, appropriateness of placements, and fiscalcontrol.

However, there are ambiguities in statute and procedures whichcaused placement decision-making participants to informally reviseprocedures to accommodate the needs of individual youth. We alsoidentified activities requiring additional emphasis by the departmentto improve process effectiveness.

In this chapter, we present four recommendations to the department.

We discuss our findings for each of these recommendations in the

following sections.


Page 28

Adjudication isPrerequisite to Funding

Throughout the recent history of juvenile justice administration inMontana, control and use of juvenile placement funding has beencontroversial. Judicial district officials (youth court judges and chiefprobation officers) and the Montana Supreme Court have interpretedthe Youth Court Act language to mean the youth court judgeultimately has the authority to control the placement of juvenileoffenders. However, because much of the funding for juvenileplacements comes from the state’s General Fund, the state agencyadministering the juvenile placement budget has wanted morecontrol over the expenditure of these funds.

The YPC process was established to assure consideration ofplacement options by various community resources who are involvedwith youth, and to provide a greater opportunity for state review ofthe recommendations.

However, budget control continues to be a significant topic ofdiscussions between department and judicial district officials. Usingsection 53-1-203, MCA, as the basis for their decision, DOCrecently issued an internal legal opinion to regional officialsrequiring a youth be adjudicated as a youth in need of supervision oras a delinquent to access juvenile placement funding. Thisrequirement results in a more restrictive eligibility for use ofplacement funding than in the past.

Although most judicial districts are adjudicating youth to access thisfunding, we found many, but not all, disagree with the legal opinionand believe it negatively impacts the juvenile justice system. Thedisagreements between DOC officials and judicial district officialscause frequent debate and appear to hamper the communication andcoordination effectiveness of the juvenile placement decision-makingprocess.


Page 29

Adjudication May Notbe Necessary

Some judicial district officials suggest that in order to accessfunding, the current DOC interpretation moves youth deeper into thejuvenile system than is necessary. In other cases, youth requiringtreatment are denied that treatment because the offense does notwarrant adjudication. Officers suggested as long as the youth admitsto the alleged offense and the parents/guardian and court agree, thereshould not be any need for the formality of a court appearance (toaccess placement funding) as presently required by DOC. Youthshould have access to placement funding through less formalproceedings such as consent adjustments or consent decrees. Tosupport their interpretation, officers indicated the intent of the YouthCourt Act is to resolve juvenile problems at the lowest, leastrestrictive level.

Statutory Ambiguity Addsto the Lack of Consensus

Statutory ambiguity adds to the lack of consensus on the issue. Forexample, section 41-5-1302, MCA, appears to support the non-adjudication interpretation by indicating a consent adjustment can beused for youth who “may be” in need of intervention. Section41-5-1304, MCA, also indicates a consent adjustment can be used toplace youth in substitute care including private agencies if reviewedby the YPC.

Court Resources Impacted Youth court officials also indicated there is an impact on availablecourt resources when youth must be adjudicated to gain access tofunding. The requirement for adjudication and disposition hearingsand documentation increases the demands on county attorney andpublic defender staff as well as the youth court.

Urban Versus RuralAlternatives InfluenceAdjudication

During our visits with probation and parole officers across-the-state,some rural officers indicated their youth are subject to more out-of-home placement with a lower level of delinquent activity than urbanjuveniles. Currently, in many rural districts there are few localresource options for intervention, and out-of-home placement is thenext available alternative. Accordingly, officers suggest youth fromthese communities do not necessarily require adjudication. Thesecases could be resolved with either a consent adjustment or consentdecree. However, adjudication is recommended because it’s theonly way to access out-of-home placement funding.


Page 30

At the opposite end of the spectrum, urban district officialsrecognized larger communities can provide more interventionoptions. By the time the youth is considered for out-of-homeplacement, a legitimate effort has already been made to resolveissues with more intensive community supervision and structure. These officers indicated when out-of-home placement is considered,a formal court appearance and adjudication is appropriate.

Pilot Project EncouragesUse of Placement Fundingfor Intervention

In 1997, the legislature approved a pilot project to determinewhether allocating a portion of the juvenile placement budget toselected judicial districts would improve the utilization of availablefunding. The flexibility to develop and improve local interventionresources which could be used in lieu of more expensive residentialplacements was an inherent part of the pilot project legislation. Reports from other states indicate the cost for supervising individualyouth can be reduced as much as 50-60 percent through localintervention programs compared to placement in residentialfacilities.

Department officials indicated pilot project legislation eliminates theneed for adjudication in pilot-designated districts because DOC is nolonger administering the funds. As a result, DOC anticipatesdifferent approaches for accessing juvenile placement fundingdepending on whether the district is pilot or non-pilot. The twoapproaches anticipated are:

- If the department administers the funds in accordance withsection 53-1-203, MCA, adjudication is required to accessplacement funding.

- If the judicial district administers the funds in accordance

with chapter 550, Laws of 1997, and chapter 161, Laws of1999, youth courts may use the funding for intervention toprovide for youth needs.


Page 31

Recommendation #1We recommend the department seeks legislation to increase theflexibility regarding the need for adjudication to access juvenileplacement funding.

Department Should ClarifyAdjudication Requirement

To address conflicts between judicial districts and the departmentregarding the use of placement funding, statutory clarification isneeded. We believe the intent of the Youth Court Act should beclarified by the legislature during the 2001 Legislative Session toassure access to juvenile placement funding without adjudication. By allowing the flexibility to adjudicate or not, the efficiency andeffectiveness of youth courts and the juvenile justice systems can beimproved. Regardless of whether a youth is adjudicated or not, toassure the current controls (described in Chapter II) are retained, theplacement review process from probation officer through YPC andregional administration to the youth court should not change.

Department Supports Needfor Clarification

The department supports the need to clarify statutory intentregarding whether adjudication is necessary to access juvenileplacement funding. However, officials are concerned about thenumber of statutes which may require revision to achieveclarification. As an alternative, the department is consideringseeking guidance from the judicial branch based on the existinglanguage.

The primary focus of our recommendation is to clarify statute andwe believe legislation would be the most effective approach. It maynot be necessary to change a significant amount of statute to achieveclarification. Potentially by redefining the term “adjudication” toinclude consent adjustment and/or decree, this issue could beresolved.


Page 32

Youth Assessments Draft DOC policy indicates officers should use standardizedassessment tools to provide the YPC with consistent informationabout youth being considered for out-of-home placement. We foundsome officers do not use assessments while others use one or both ofthe two assessments tools currently available. One of the reasons forthis inconsistency involves the reorganization of the juvenile justicefunction. When DOC’s predecessor, the Department of FamilyServices (DFS), was responsible for juvenile activities, DFSprovided training on an assessment tool known as Strategies forJuvenile Supervision (SJS). While many officers and departmentstaff attended the training, others did not. Further, some trainedofficers elected not to use SJS. When juvenile administrationtransferred to DOC, the department provided training for officers ona new tool known as Risk Assessment for Treatment (RAFT). Again, not all officers were trained and in some cases those trainedelected not to use RAFT. According to staff, SJS is more useful forprobation youth because it helps determine the level of supervisionneeded. RAFT is more appropriate for parole youth, because itidentifies treatment requirements. We noted some officers decidednot to use either tool, believing their time with the youth, experiencewith other youth, and professional judgement provide the sameresults as a formal assessment.

Assessments HelpDetermine Treatment Needs

According to information received from other states, assessmentsshould be used to help determine the type of intervention, and/ortreatment based on the youth’s needs. Assessments can match theyouth’s needs with available resource options. In addition,assessments are used to distinguish between youth requiringintensive supervision and structure (intervention) and youth who area risk to the community. Further, officials can use the results ofassessments to help determine what types of placement facilities andintervention alternatives are needed in the state. Then, officials canestablish priorities for development of a continuum of services in thestate’s juvenile justice system. Finally, use of standardizedassessment tools allow new case managers and treatmentprofessionals to reproduce the results of an officer’s assessmentwhich led to the initial determination of placement and to reaffirmlong-term and on-going treatment conditions.


Page 33

YPCs Rely on AssessmentResults

YPC members rely upon the results of officer assessments, includingSJS and RAFT. While many of Montana’s probation and paroleofficers have the experience to determine appropriate placementswithout formal assessment results, other committee members do notnecessarily possess such background and expertise. YPCs use theMontana Placement Guidelines to help determine the security levelrequired for a juvenile. Officers indicated guidelines scores arefrequently overridden due to mitigating circumstances and do notaddress the type of placement facility. Assessment tool results canfurther help both individual committee members and YPCs acrossthe state to become more consistent in their decision-making. According to department officials, by using assessment tools, aplacement decision for rural youth committing delinquent offensesshould be similar to decisions made for an urban youth with thesame offenses. Staff believe this is the intent of the Youth CourtAct.

The department’s draft policy for YPCs also includes a provisionindicating the chairperson of the committee may re-schedule themeeting if the referral package is not complete. Existing departmentpolicies are not specifically directive to youth court operations. Therefore, use of an assessment tool and providing results to theYPC is considered optional by many probation officers. Weobserved examples of YPC placement reviews which did not includethe results of a standardized assessment. Although allowed bydepartment policy, discussion with committee members indicated areluctance to delay or re-schedule YPC referrals when informationwas lacking, because of the perceived urgency to proceed with theyouth's placement.

YPC Placement ReviewProcess Should IncludeAssessment

According to ARMs, the YPC chairperson is already responsible forassuring the availability of referral information to committeemembers. Since statute indicates members should have access to allrelevant information, assessment results should be included. Toassure committee members understand their responsibilities andauthority regarding review of all relevant information, thedepartment should revise administrative rules to provide authorityfor the chairperson and/or the committee to request formalassessments and delay proceedings until results are available. We


Page 34

Recommendation #2We recommend the department revise administrative rules toestablish procedures which assure results of formal youthassessments are available to YPCs.

recognize this recommendation may impact YPC referral timelinessfor a few initial cases. However, we believe as officers becomemore familiar with the needs of their respective YPCs, delays shouldbe the exception.

Department Agrees withNeed for ARMs Revision

Department officials intend to revise ARMs to require thecompletion of an acceptable assessment tool prior to a YPC reviewof placement alternatives. The department anticipates allowing thechairperson to defer reviews until the results of an assessment areavailable. The department also intends to incorporate the assessmentrequirement into evaluation and approval of judicial districts seekingparticipation in the pilot project expansion.

Financial SupportAlternatives

Section 41-5-122, MCA, requires the YPC to consider more than theappropriateness of placement options. This statute also requiresconsideration of options for financial support of the youth. Probation officers and other YPC members frequently expressedconcern about how to resolve the funding responsibility for a youthwho has previously been or is currently designated as a “youth inneed of care” due to abuse, neglect, disability, or mental healthissues. Their primary concern was whether a youth should beadjudicated as a delinquent, because the care/treatment providedpreviously through DPHHS funding did not or could not deterdelinquent activity. A secondary concern was whether and when itwas appropriate to use DOC funding for youth with an extensivehistory of youth in need of care issues.

Officers indicated placement costs for these youth are typically highdue to the level of treatment and supervision required and this canincrease the reluctance to accept funding responsibility forplacement. The examples presented by probation officers reflecteddisposition and placement delays while the youth remained in


Page 35

detention facilities until funding responsibility was decided. Otherexamples focused on youth identified as in need of care fordevelopmental disabilities or mental health, who eventuallycommitted a delinquent offense. Even though the use of juvenileplacement funding was supported by the YPC as the most expedientoption, members expressed concern about whether it was theappropriate source of funding for these youth.

Resolution AlternativesInclude Joint Funding

Most officers agreed these funding issue cases should be resolved atthe lowest possible level to assure prompt court proceedings andaccess to treatment. Some officers presented alternatives to resolvesuch cases and suggested resolution was more timely and effectivewhen the YPC membership included management level staff fromDOC and DPHHS. In other communities, frequent contact betweenregional staff at routinely scheduled inter-agency meetings to reviewyouth cases (care, abuse, neglect, disability, truancy, juveniles, etc.)also facilitated resolution of youth placement funding issues. Additionally, we found some judicial districts used a joint-agencyfunding approach, while others had not considered this alternative. We also noted referrals to county attorneys and directed funding bythe youth court were factors in resolving some cases.

Compliance with ExistingStatute Should AllowResolution

Based on statute requiring review of financial support options, webelieve the YPC meeting is the appropriate level for resolving inter-agency funding issues. When probation officers make referrals toYPCs, pre-disposition reports usually discuss abuse, neglect, mentalhealth, or developmentally disabled history, as well as delinquentactivities. YPC members should be reviewing these pre-dispositionreports to consider relevant background information and the impacton funding options when preparing a recommendation for theregional administrator. If committee members cannot reachconsensus, then their recommendation to the department shouldreflect both sides of the funding issue.

When the YPC does not reach consensus on funding responsibility,the decision to pursue resolution at a higher level of authority shouldbe a DOC regional administrator responsibility. In addition tocontacting other agency counterparts, the regional administrator alsohas the option to recommend county attorney or court involvement


Page 36

Recommendation #3We recommend the department formalize YPC operatingprocedures for pursuing and resolving placement funding issues.

to help resolve such issues. The department should formalize YPCprocedures which outline the process for pursuing and resolvingpotential alternative funding cases and incorporate these proceduresinto a training package designed for YPC members, regionaladministrators, and financial specialists.

Is Statutory RevisionNeeded?

During discussion of this issue with representatives of DOC andDPHHS, one suggestion was to revise state law to define bothdepartments’ responsibilities for youth who move from youth inneed of care to the juvenile system (youth in need of intervention ordelinquent). Staff indicated the two departments should examineapproaches which range from:

- Once a youth in need of care, always a youth in need of careand funding is the responsibility of DPHHS, to

- Whenever a youth commits a delinquent offense, fundingresponsibility belongs to DOC.

Officials in both departments recognize these kinds of definitionswould have a long term impact on program budgets and potentiallyon staff workload in DOC and DPHHS. We do not believe a changein statute is needed at this time. However, we recognize if ourrecommendation to refine existing procedures to resolve these casesat the lowest level is not effective, another approach may benecessary. Our current recommendation should not preclude the twodepartments from jointly considering alternatives.

Department SupportsFormalizing FundingProcedures

DOC officials indicated their on-going development of a trainingpackage for YPC members should help this issue. In addition, staffpropose revising formal policy to include procedures for pursuingdispute resolution. Officials also intend to formalize existingmeetings between DPHHS and DOC management to includeresolution of specific youth and juvenile placement cases.


Page 37

- Districts using either a citizen review board (CRB), fostercare review committee (FCRC), or a combination of aprobation officer report and youth court judge review in lieuof the YPC to meet statutory intent.

- Case files which did not reflect documentation of a six-month review, indicating non-compliance with statute.

- Duplication such as both the FCRC and YPC reviewedyouth for the same six-month period.

Six-month PlacementReviews

During the audit, we examined procedures used to comply with therequirement in section 41-5-122(7), MCA, which states youthplacement committees (YPC) shall “conduct placement reviews atleast semiannually.” The purpose of these reviews is the same as theinitial placement referral: review all relevant information, evaluateresources which meet the needs of the youth based on treatmentrecommendations of professionals, and consider financial supportoptions. We found while most probation officers indicated somekind of six-month review was performed for their youth, a variety ofprocedures were used to actually complete the reviews.

Our audit findings included:

Purpose of Committees andBoards Differ

The two review groups, YPC versus FCRC/CRB, were establishedfor fundamentally different purposes. YPCs should be consideringthe most appropriate current placement for youth based on existingtreatment needs. The FCRC/CRB is typically more interested in theoverall plan and approach for returning youth to the family orfinding a permanent placement if family is not an option.

Further, documentation developed for one group was not designed tomeet the needs of the other. Therefore, if a FCRC or CRB reviews a


Page 38

juvenile case, the necessary documentation may not be provided tothe case manager, department, or court.

Valid Reasons forSubstituting Review Groups

Officers indicated the CRB and FCRC are used in some communitiesbecause federal criteria also requires six-month placement reviews tosupport payments such as Medicaid and Social Security benefits. Sections 41-3-1010 and 41-3-1115, MCA, require reviews of youthin foster care placements by either a CRB or FCRC. Since manyjuvenile offenders qualify for federal support payments and/or are infoster care, both the FCRC/CRB and YPC have a statutory six-month review requirement. As a result, we noted FCRCs/CRBswere used for juvenile offender reviews because of the preference ofthe district courts to work with members of FCRC/CRBs alreadyreviewing out-of-home placements of youth who are not in troublewith the law.

Officers Proposed LocalFlexibility for Reviews

During the audit, probation and parole officers discussed thepossibility of revising statute to allow judicial districts the flexibilityto use either the YPC or a FCRC/CRB. To assure complete reviewsand eliminate duplication of reviews, courts should have theflexibility to select either the YPC or a FCRC/CRB within theirdistrict. In some communities, group members may be the same fora YPC and the FCRC/CRB. In other communities, this is not thecase.

If a statutory alternative to YPC review is developed, it would alsobe necessary to establish procedures for documenting the review andassure appropriate attendance to address the intent of the YouthCourt Act. These procedures should be formalized in administrativerule, and should identify juvenile justice system representation atFCRC/CRB six-month reviews to address and document YPC-related issues.

We believe revising state law to provide an alternative to the YPCreview has merit because it should reduce duplication and/or clarifyjuvenile offender placement review responsibilities.


Page 39

Recommendation #4We recommend the department seek legislation to allowalternatives to using the YPC to conduct six-month placementreviews.

Department Wants toAssure Reviews areComplete and EliminateDuplication

Department officials indicated their intent to review this issue andevaluate options such as policy changes, education and training,ARMs revision, or legislative change. The department wants toinvolve YPC members and the Juvenile Probation OfficersAssociation in the evaluation process. While we believe revision ofstatute would be the most effective method of resolving this issue,the department's approach for examining alternatives by involvingthe affected parties is reasonable.

Chapter IV - Staff Roles and Responsibilities

Page 41

- Formally identify the roles and responsibilities offinancial specialists, and establish workload priorities.

- Review anticipated workload for the Juvenile ResidentialPlacement Unit (JRPU) and establish priorities reflectingpilot project expansion.

Introduction We identified two management areas requiring department attention. In this chapter, we present two recommendations. We recommendthe department:

We discuss our findings for these recommendations in the followingsections.

Financial Specialists The primary focus of financial specialists is to evaluate fundingalternatives for out-of-home placements to maximize coverage of the General Fund juvenile placement appropriations. By verifying youtheligibility and determining if case managers applied for availablefinancial resources, financial specialists extend the department’sfunding resources. According to their position descriptions,financial specialists should be advisers and provide assistance to thefollowing:

- Youth courts/probation officers,- Department parole officers,- YPC chairperson and members, and- Regional administrators.

Services are Extensive We found the range of services provided by financial specialists wereextensive. According to department records, financial specialistsassured access to over $1 million in 1998 which might otherwise nothave been available for juvenile placements. In some regions, earlynotification of the financial specialists by case managers regardingpotential placement recommendations results in a more thoroughassessment of funding options and financial support alternatives priorto the YPC meeting. This allows YPC members to address theimplications of possible parental contributions and insurance, federal


Page 42

assistance, and/or alternative funding. Since the financial specialistsmonitor and project placement expenditures, the impact of the costof a potential placement on the regional budget and therefore theimpact on future placements can also be addressed at YPC meetings. At the meetings we observed, the result was a substantive discussionof placement alternatives and costs, and general consensus on theplacement recommendation being forwarded to the regionaladministrator.

Services Could be MoreConsistent

While the range of services provided by financial specialists wasextensive, we found the provision of these services was inconsistentbetween regions. We noted the following examples of differencesand inconsistencies:

- Applications for Supplemental Security Insurance, SocialSecurity Survivors benefits, or Medicaid. In some regions,probation/parole officers complete these types of activities;in others, the financial specialist does the work.

- YPC meeting arrangements and invitation of optionalattendees such as mental health agency officials, medicalprofessionals, or parents. In some regions, this is theresponsibility of financial specialists, in others, the casemanager/officer does the work.

- Development of fiscal alternatives prior to the YPC meeting. We noted some regions or judicial districts within regionsdeveloped procedures to accomplish this, others have not.

- Preparation, timing, and documentation of parentalcontribution determination and requests. In some regions,parental contribution review is initiated prior to the YPCmeeting, in other regions the work is not initiated until theregional administrator approves the YPC recommendation.

- CAPS data entry and update. In some regions, officers areresponsible for all CAPS data entry, completeness, andaccuracy. In other locations, financial specialists assumedportions of this work.

- Budget and expenditure documentation. In some regions,the documentation developed by financial specialists includesdetail about types of placements and expenditures as well as


Page 43

individual placement information. In other regions, onlyindividual placements are tracked in detail.

- Pilot project responsibilities. Financial specialists in allregions indicated their role was not clear relative to pilotproject districts and the anticipated expansion of the pilotapproach.

Several Reasons forDifferences

We identified several reasons for the differences and inconsistencies. First, the financial specialist positions were established following the1997 Legislative Session and duties are still evolving. Second,although not necessarily the case in every region, it appearedofficers in the judicial district where the regional office and financialspecialist are co-located had more frequent contact. This resulted ininformal operating procedures which officers in other judicialdistricts may not necessarily be aware of. Further, officers andfinancial specialists in one region are not aware of local/informalprocedures used effectively in another region. Third, the departmenthas not established formal policy and/or procedural guidelines toidentify fundamental duties and responsibilities. Finally, withimplementation of the pilot projects in two regions, day-to-dayservices provided by financial specialists have not been determinedfor pilot versus non-pilot districts.

Work Emphasis andPriorities Should beIdentified

Based on the differences identified above, we noted financialspecialists in some regions are not sure how much emphasis to placeon any one type of workload, particularly when this work is at theexpense of other placement-related duties. Financial specialists in allregions identified existing workload backlogs and suggested therewas a need to establish guidelines to identify day-to-day priorities.

Policy and ProcedureGuidelines are Needed

While allowing for some independence and creativity, duties andresponsibilities should be formally identified to clarify the role offinancial specialists for everyone involved in the process, includingprobation and parole officers, YPC members, and regional staff. While neither service to probation and parole officers norexpenditure tracking needs to be exactly the same in all regions orjudicial districts, financial specialists should be aware of fundamentalwork requirements. In addition, financial specialists should haveadequate guidance to determine work priorities when backlogs exist.


Page 44

Recommendation #5We recommend the department:

A. Develop formal policy guidelines to identify the roles andresponsibilities of financial specialists, including servicesprovided to case managers, YPC members, and regionalstaff, and

B. Establish financial specialist workload priorities.

Department to RevisePosition Descriptions andDevelop a ProceduresManual

Department officials indicated their intent to address specific dutiesand responsibilities, in a revision of financial specialist positiondescriptions. Further, staff are in the process of developing aprocedures manual to identify important work tasks. Finally, thedepartment intends to pursue automation of some of the trackingresponsibilities to improve financial specialist effectiveness andconsistency.

Juvenile ResidentialPlacement Unit (JRPU)

The formal mission of the JRPU is to provide the most appropriateplacements with available resources. The unit manager positiondescription indicates the primary responsibility is to developeffective, innovative strategies to achieve the mission. Definedduties focus on residential placement program development,monitoring/coordinating placement services, and oversight ofplacement costs to maximize funding resources.

Current Priority isPlacement Review

We found the current primary workload priority is after-the-factreview of placements. This includes reviewing placementdocumentation such as YPC referral forms, court orders, and six-month review documentation. According to department officials,although not a statutory requirement, staff review court orders toverify compliance with Youth Court Act criteria to avoid the risk ofliability to the state from a questionable placement. When staffdetermine placement documentation is not correct for the placementmade, they coordinate with DOC regional and youth court officials. While infrequent, in the past these reviews resulted in changes inplacements, a determination of alternative funding sources, and/orrevision of the disposition court order. Staff indicate based on


Page 45

existing resources, available time, and other priorities, review of allplacements and associated documentation is not possible. Therefore,most reviews involve youth placed in the highest cost facilities oryouth in placements proposed for extended periods.

Other Priorities includeContract Negotiation andOversight

The second workload priority for the JRPU involves negotiatingplacement contracts with private provider facilities. The departmentcurrently administers the three in-state and several out-of-statecontracts for juvenile placement identified in Chapter II. Thesecontracts have been re-negotiated annually. With the department’srecent decision to use individual placement agreements, staffanticipate a reduction in the work required for contract negotiation.

Oversight of contract facilities includes verification of contractrequirements through review of reports and/or on-site visits withprovider staff and youths. While JRPU staff recognize an obligationfor assessment of contract requirements, due to existing resourcesand available time, contract oversight has been limited to occasionalvisits to the three DOC contracted in-state providers. Again, the useof individual agreements for out-of-state placements should reducethe number of facilities requiring oversight.

Pilot Project Workload During the past two fiscal years, JRPU staff were also involved withmonitoring of the two pilot project districts. Staff indicated primarypilot project activities to date include: developing funding allocationprocedures, resolving intervention program funding issues, andclarifying procedures for case managers, YPCs, and regional staff. Based on chapter 161, Laws of 1999, the pilot project approachcould expand to 12 of the 22 judicial districts during the 2000-01biennium.

Pilot Project Policies andProcedures Needed

Probation officers and DOC staff anticipate expansion of the pilotapproach into additional judicial districts will significantly increasethe number of questions and problems compared to the two districtscurrently involved. Probation officers expressed concern about thefollowing issues regarding the pilot project approach and expansion:

- Assurance of a fair allocation of funding.- Consistent and timely payment procedures.


Page 46

- Resolution of over budget conditions.

- Identification of financial tracking responsibilities.

- Utilization of funds for intervention programs.

- Impact of using correctional facility/contract placements.

- Definition of roles of YPCs, regional administrator, andfinancial specialist.

For these types of concerns, officers typically wanted formal policiesand procedures identified in advance of project participation. As aresult, the need to dedicate JRPU resources prior to operations andduring the initial stages of expansion is important. Oversight toassure placement decision-making process checks and balances areworking should be a secondary responsibility of JRPU. Based onour audit work, it does not appear the current resources allocated toJRPU activities will be adequate to address both current and futureworkload.

JRPU Priorities ShouldInclude Pilot ProjectProcedures and Oversight

The department should review current and anticipated workload forthe JRPU and establish priorities which include implementing anexpanded pilot project approach and developing standard proceduresfor operations and oversight. Based on the department’s proposal,we support establishing a working group of officers, both pilot andnon-pilot, as well as YPC members to resolve pilot project policyconcerns. The unit manager should be responsible for oversight ofthe working group to assure coordination and timeliness. Theultimate goal should be to issue policy documents and formalize asmany of the operational and oversight aspects of the pilot approachas possible early in the expansion process.

Department ProposesDeveloping a Work Plan asthe First Step

In support of our recommendation, division officials proposeddevelopment of a work plan to examine current and anticipatedworkloads for the JRPU. Following this review, the divisionadministrator intends to review work priorities and assignment ofstaff as appropriate.


Page 47

Recommendation #6We recommend the department:

A. Re-establish workload priorities for the JRPU.

B. Include pilot project expansion procedures and oversightas a workload priority for the JRPU.

Agency Response

Page 49

Out-of-home Placement of Juvenile...

Documents

Transcript of Out-of-home Placement of Juvenile...