Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/27/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Juvenile Justice Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2010
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview: Juvenile Justice Programs
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report.
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE MCCOMB, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT:
CHRIS AGLOINGA, Juvenile Probation Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
POSITION STATEMENT: expert in aggression replacement training
RAY MICHAELSON, Program Coordinator
Division of Juvenile Justice
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
POSITION STATEMENT: Performance-based standards (PBS)
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:42 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Senators McGuire, Egan,
Coghill and French were present at the call to order. Senator
Wielechowski arrived shortly thereafter.
^JUVENILE JUSTICE OVERVIEW
CHAIR FRENCH announced the business before the committee is to
get an overview of the way the criminal justice system works in
Alaska for juveniles.
1:33:15 PM
STEVE MCCOMB, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ),
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
introduced his team members and said the overview will cover the
youth level of service (YLS) inventory; performance-based
standards PbS; and aggression replacement training (ART). He
displayed a map showing the locations of 16 DJJ field probation
offices and 8 youth facilities statewide and informed the
committee that the DJJ mission is based on the restorative
justice philosophy of repair the harm. The components are: 1) to
hold the juvenile offender accountable for his/her behavior; 2)
to promote the safety and restoration of victims and
communities; and 3) to help the youths and families develop
skills to prevent future crimes.
In 2003 DJJ developed a system improvement plan using the
Washington State for Public Policy evidence-based practices as a
roadmap. Early failures illustrated the importance of program
fidelity and since then the results have been good.
1:38:42 PM
MR. MCCOMB explained that youths enter the juvenile justice
system by committing an offense that would be a crime if
committed by an adult. For initial low-level property crimes the
cases are often handled informally without involving the court.
For example, the youth might be directed to work for the victim
to repair the harm. The court becomes involved when the crimes
are more serious or repeat offenses.
CHAIR FRENCH questioned how much discretion DJJ has at that
critical juncture between informal and formal resolution.
MR. MCCOMB replied it's a fair amount; the intake officer makes
the initial decision and the office supervisor reviews the
cases. A discussion ensues when they don't agree.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there is an automatic review for serious
crimes.
MR. MCCOMB explained that DJJ automatically calls the DAs office
when the crime is serious. Responding to a further question, he
explained that more serious crimes could be waived to adult
court.
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Office of Youth Corrections, Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS), added that an automatic
waiver applies to youths 16 years of age and older who have
committed serious offenses. The department may petition for a
discretionary waiver for any age youth and for any crime, but it
must substantiate the reasoning. Responding to a further
question, he confirmed that there is no statutory lower age
limit for a discretionary waiver.
MR. MCCOMB displayed a chart showing that 71 percent of
juveniles on supervision were at home and 29 percent were in
custody. He explained the next chart showing a remarkable
downward trend in DJJ referrals between 2003 and 2009 as
follows: 1) The law changed and Title 47 mental health and non-
crime inebriate cases now go to an emergency shelter rather than
detention; and 2) Increased dialog among the Anchorage Police
Department, Military Police, FBI, and DJJ on gang related
issues. Youths who continue to commit crimes are placed in a
more secure setting.
1:46:54 PM
SENATOR COGHILL observed that the Fairbanks police estimate that
they apprehend just one in fifty underage drinkers, and
questioned how the trend line might change if this weren't such
an issue. [A response to this question was provided in a follow-
up letter to Senator French dated February 2, 2010.]
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the minor in possession citations are
reflected in these statistics.
MR. MCCOMB answered no.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the national trend is for juvenile
crime.
MR. MCCOMB replied it's similar; there's a nationwide decrease.
Continuing with the presentation, he explained that the decrease
in crime has afforded DJJ the opportunity to transition
underutilized facility resources into preventative programs. The
Community Detention Program at McLaughlin Youth Center has been
very successful. DJJ partners with the school district so the
youth receive education in the morning and community work
service activities in the afternoon. DJJ is trying to implement
a similar program at the Johnson Youth Center but resources are
limited.
The "Step Up" Program, which is a partnership between the
Anchorage School District, Nine Star, and Anchorage United for
Youth, was designed for students who have been suspended or
expelled from school for aggressive behavior. To get back into
school the student must complete a course on aggression training
and then demonstrate to the school board or superintendant that
he/she is worthy of reentry. Responding to a question from
Senator French, he clarified that the school provides the
teacher, Nine Star provides the building, and DJJ provides
supervision, community work service and the 10-week aggression
replacement training. Anchorage United for Youth provides
financial support. Responding to a question from Senator Egan,
he confirmed that the chart doesn't reflect data from this
intervention. The students have committed a school offense, not
a crime.
1:51:27 PM
MR. MCCOMB displayed a chart showing the demographics of
referrals statewide and noted that the Alaska Native population
is disproportionately large. Alaska Natives represent 16-17
percent of the population statewide, whereas they represent 30
percent of the referrals.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the Ann E. Casey Foundation worked
within DJJ when it looked at population representation.
MR. MCCOMB said no, but the Office of Children's Services (OCS)
and DJJ work together and share information to address the same
issue.
MR. MCCOMB pointed out that the chart also indicates that 1
percent of the referrals are younger than 10 years of age. He
explained that youths who are detained for fire starting at age
8 or 9 and who also mutilate animals clearly need help and are
referred for neurological study. Once youths with these
behaviors go on to commit a crime, they fit in the nationally
recognized category of serious habitual offenders. A juvenile in
this category is very likely to end up in the adult system.
1:56:22 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked what neurological anomalies they see in
the 10 and under age group.
MR. MCCOMB offered to provide the information in a follow-up.
[An answer was provided in a follow-up letter to Senator French
dated February 2, 2010.]
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if these youths can receive treatment in
Alaska.
MR. MCCOMB said his experience is that kids that need a lot of
neurological treatment are sent out of state. He recalled that
Wisconsin has a facility.
SENATOR COGHILL observed that about one-third of the juveniles
are under age 16 and asked for an explanation of the reporting
process.
MR. MCCOMB related that if a youth indicates that he/she was
physically or sexually abused by someone in the home, DJJ makes
a referral to OCS.
SENATOR MCGUIRE encouraged DJJ to continue to gather data to
help address the issue of sexual assault and abuse of youths.
MR. MCCOMB informed the committee that the data indicates that
youths who receive treatment early-on after having committed a
sex crime may, in fact, go on to commit another crime; but it
probably won't be a sex crime.
2:00:32 PM
MR. MCCOMB highlighted that 46 percent of the youths referred to
DJJ have some form of DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition] diagnosis. This is lower than
the national average, but that might be because DJJ hasn't
implemented an intake screening tool for mental health. DJJ does
recognize the need to address this gap, he said.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if the mental health disorder diagnosis
includes acquired brain injury.
MR. MCCOMB replied DJJ hasn't got a process for identifying TBI
at this time, but an expert on traumatic brain injury (TBI) who
works at McLaughlin has reported seeing 6-7 youths who have TBI
and he's working with the staff on ways to assist them.
SENATOR MCGUIRE encouraged him to get involvement in the brain
injury network because Alaska has the highest rate in the
nation.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to identify the largest co-occurring
issues.
MR. MCCOMB replied they are alcohol and marijuana. He added that
the crimes that juveniles commit don't vary much and largely
tend to be property crimes.
2:04:51 PM
MR. MCCOMB displayed a chart showing recidivism data from 2004
through the first half of 2008 and said the base line is 30-32
percent.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the measure of recidivism is the same as
for adults, which is to reoffend within three years.
MR. NEWMAN replied the measure DJJ uses is within one year of
release from confinement. Responding to further questions, he
explained that the blue bars on the chart represent release from
formal probation and the red bars reflect youths that have been
in secure treatment.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the red bar representing treatment
would be release from a facility like McLaughlin jail while the
blue bar representing probation would be release from something
other than jail. He observed that for FY07, 45 percent
reoffended within one year of release from jail and 30 percent
reoffend within one year of release from probation.
MR. MCCOMB agreed and added that the trend line increased at a
disturbing rate. DJJ did some research and found that Alaska
Natives were the population of concern. He noted that the
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators has brought all
the states together to develop a national recidivism standard.
He opined that this will be a difficult goal to meet.
2:07:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
SENATOR EGAN asked if the recidivism rates are the same from
region to region.
MR. MCCOMB replied they are different and he will provide that
information in a subsequent slide.
SENATOR COGHILL observed that the numbers wouldn't be accurate
after age 17.
MR. NEWMAN said DJJ looks in the ABSUM system to see if kids
reoffend after they turn 18.
MR. MCCOMB added that some states stop counting when a youth
moves from one county to another so those look like success
stories. That's why it's important to compare Alaska data to
states that have the same standard of measure.
2:10:05 PM
He displayed a slide of treatment recidivism by race category
and said this breakdown made obvious the need to work with
Alaska Natives. To that end, they visited villages where there
is lots of delinquent activity and asked about what resources
were available to keep youths in the village. Likewise, they
asked about available resources that would keep kids returning
from McLaughlin or the Fairbanks Youth Facility from committing
new crimes. We recognize that we'll need to work closely with
Native corporations and school districts, but it's exciting to
do things differently, Mr. McComb said.
CHAIR FRENCH described the graph as stunning; the recidivism
rate for Alaska Natives in FY04 was 21 percent and it was 300
percent higher in FY06. He asked his sense of what's going on.
MR. NEWMAN pointed out that just 100-150 kids are released from
juvenile treatment per year so a change of just a few kids in a
category results in a large percentage increase.
MR. MCCOMB said they can surmise that in FY04 they released a
lot of Alaska Natives who were sex offenders, but they don't
know for sure. Several years ago he contacted 10 youths who had
reoffended and were again in custody and these youths the
strength of the program to the school districts and the DJJ
staff. In fact, young adults have come back to say they credit
the staff for their ultimate success. In conclusion he said
they've learned that success hinges on following the evidence
based models closely and quality assurance measures to ensure
that they maintain fidelity of the model.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if that's something they don't have the
manpower to do.
MR. MCCOMB replied he hasn't sold the commissioner, the Office
of Management and Budget, or the governor on the value of
quality assurance and training so that evidence-based practices
can be demonstrated and done correctly.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many people he needs.
MR. MCCOMB replied they need three PCNs statewide; one person
for quality assurance and two for training to ensure fidelity.
2:16:43 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Office of Youth Corrections, Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said his presentation will
focus on the youth level of service/case management inventory
("The YLS") and why he believes that the proper use of this
assessment tool will attain the two mutual goals of evidence-
based practices - to increase public safety and enhance the
state's value. He noted that in a recent publication the
Washington Institute for Public Policy indicated that
establishing a good assessment process for juveniles was the
foundation for developing and using a program based on evidence-
based practices "because you can't know what kind of programming
you need until you know what kind of needs your juveniles have."
MR. NEWMAN related that five years ago the division director
asked him to help bring The YLS into use around the state. Doing
so helped him to see that there is an answer to what puts a
youth at increased risk for delinquent behavior and what makes a
youth go on to recidivate. Basically, there are eight strong
risk factors for delinquent behavior.
· A history of offending
· Challenging family circumstances
· Difficulties in education and employment
· Poor peer relations
· Substance abuse
· Few leisure activities or interests
· Pro-criminal behavior or personality
· Pro-criminal attitudes
The more risk factors a youth has, the more likely it is that
he/she will continue to commit crimes.
2:19:26 PM
Risk factors such as socio-economic status, personal distress,
mental illness, family structure, learning disabilities, abusive
parents, and low self-esteem are often assumed to be related to
delinquency, but are either weakly linked or not linked at all.
However, that's not to say that they don't have to work with
these factors to overcome delinquency once a youth is in the
system, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to distinguish between challenging family
circumstances, which is a strong risk factor, and family
structure, which is a weak link.
MR. NEWMAN explained that the former looks at whether or not
parental discipline and supervision is appropriate and whether
there's a positive relationship between the child and parent,
whereas family structure is talking about single-parent
households.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that moving between the mother's house
and father's house after a divorce isn't necessarily a risk
factor for delinquent behavior as long as both parents are
reasonably involved in establishing lines of authority and
oversight.
MR. NEWMAN agreed.
2:21:16 PM
MR. NEWMAN said some of the eight strong risk factors for
delinquency are static and some are dynamic. Once a youth has
committed an offense or had an educational failure we can't
change that, he said, but we can help to change a youth's family
circumstances, educational goals, and friendships. A good
assessment tool will help to determine what risk factors can be
changed and we can provide guidance on what to do with a youth
and his/her family to address the problems he/she is having that
results in delinquency.
In addition, a good assessment tool will minimize the influence
of biases and perceptions about youth, he said. For example, I
may look at a youth and see someone who is rowdy and a risk
taker but not too much trouble; whereas you may think that same
kid needs to be locked up immediately. A good assessment tool
will help set an objective set of criteria so we both reach the
same conclusion about what needs to be done about a youth. It
will help guide decisions better on what the youth needs in
terms of services or placements and hopefully it will lead to
increased public safety. The idea is that the kids with the most
intensive needs will receive the most intensive services.
2:22:47 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Alaska Natives are overrepresented in
the juvenile justice system and asked what assurance Alaska
Native groups have that there isn't some tool that's working
against them.
MR. NEWMAN replied a good assessment tool should be neutral
across races. He added that an appealing factor about this tool
is that it's widely used and has been validated among remote
northern Canadian indigenous populations that are similar to
Alaska Native villages. It's specific to juvenile delinquency
and it settles on those major risk factors that have been
identified through research. The format is also good for case
management flowing directly from the assessment results, which
encourages probation officer to look at the assessment results
and determine how to set up a case plan based on those results.
MR. NEWMAN highlighted the following features of The YLS:
· It's completed after in-depth interviews with the youth,
parents, and others familiar with the youth.
· It asks 42 questions on the eight major risk factors.
· It has strict scoring criteria to limit subjectivity. For
example, one question asks whether parental discipline is
appropriate.
· It allows room for professional discretion to adjust the
final risk/need level recognizing that there may be
information that isn't in the questionnaire that may impact
the way the probation officer needs to work with the youth.
The YLS was introduced statewide in 2005 and is used on youths
who have been adjudicated delinquent in court and are at least
age 12. The youth is re-assessed every six months that he/she
remains on probation supervision or following release from a
secure or non-secure residential program.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what percentage of their annual referrals go
through this formal assessment.
MR. NEWMAN estimated that it's on the order of 30 percent. He
added that one of the most valuable aspects of this tool is that
it's integrated with the juvenile offender database so they can
readily get reports on these kids.
2:26:58 PM
MR. NEWMAN displayed a graph showing the assessment information
the probation officer receives on the youth's overall risk to
reoffend based on the [interview and] answers to those [42]
questions. The sample graph reflected a total score of 23, which
means that the youth will be supervised at the high-contact
level by the probation officer. He noted that the computerized
version of the assessment also breaks down the total score by
risk factor to show in what area(s) the youth has the greatest
needs. In the example the youth scored high in offense history,
peer relations, substance abuse, and leisure/recreation needs.
These are the specific areas to work on if the youth is going to
have his/her risk of recidivism reduced.
MR. NEWMAN displayed a graph of the average total YLS scores
from 17 youths both before they went into treatment at
McLaughlin or another youth facility and after they were
released. Interestingly, he said, the youths who did not go on
to reoffend started at high risk but following treatment their
scores fell significantly into the low risk area; whereas the
youths who did go on to reoffend started in the moderate risk
range and remained in that range during the course of their
treatment and afterwards. When he consulted an author of The YLS
about these puzzling findings he was told that it shows the
importance of putting the right kids in treatment because
putting kids into treatment when they aren't necessarily at high
risk can increase their criminality. He agreed with Senator
French's observation that it's the idea that a detention
facility can be a school for criminals.
He displayed a bar graph showing the risk/need scores of a 17
year old non-recidivating male from McLaughlin Youth Center who
scored high risk in seven of the eight areas pre-treatment and
lower in all but the offense category several months after
treatment. In five of the eight areas his score had dropped to
zero.
2:31:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he can see how someone might undergo a
pronounced attitude change after spending time at McLaughlin but
he doesn't understand the complete change in family and
parenting. He asked if the parents modified their behavior.
MR. NEWMAN replied they'd like to continue to use this tool to
try to answer that question.
He displayed a similar bar graph showing the scores of a 17 year
old male from McLaughlin Youth Center who reoffended within a
year of release. His risk/need scores increased in five of the
eight categories.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the second assessment was done before the
youth reoffended.
MR. NEWMAN said he isn't sure; the reassessment is performed
within a few months of release, but they look at a full year to
see if a youth is a recidivist.
The YLS can help answer what happened at the youth facility and
afterward in the community that made a difference for the first
youth, but not the second youth. Mr. Newman said that on a more
global level they are eager to see how this tool can help
overall resource decisions.
2:33:07 PM
MR. NEWMAN displayed two bar graphs and compared the data for
the 11 youths who did not go on to reoffend to the data for the
6 youths who did go on to reoffend. The average scores for the
non-recidivists dropped in every category while the scores for
the recidivists dropped less. The more we can unlock the secrets
of this tool the more we'll be able to answer questions about
what services are needed in these risk/need areas statewide,
regionally, and individually, he said.
MR. NEWMAN outlined the next steps in The YLS:
· Ensure quality assurance
· Is the staff using the tool the way it's supposed
to be used?
· Is it being performed according to policy?
· Would two assessors score the same youth the same
way?
· Is the staff adequately trained?
He touched on what more The YLS can tell:
· The difference between youths who reoffend and
those who don't.
· The programs that Alaska might need to decrease
recidivism.
MR. NEWMAN welcomed suggestions and offered to meet individually
with the members.
2:35:41 PM
CHRIS AGLOINGA, District Probation Supervisor in Nome, Division
of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), said she is working on her master's certification for
aggression replacement training (ART) and that she will be one
of six worldwide to have this certification. She explained that
ART is a cognitive behavioral, multi-modal curriculum comprised
of three interdependent components:
· Structured learning training (SLT)
· Anger control training (ACT)
· Moral reasoning (MR).
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency has rated ART as
a model program; it's proven to be cost-effective through the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
MS. AGLOINGA said that when they give the training they teach
the proverb "We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors." to let
the facilitators know that the information they're providing is
based on sound programs that have longstanding success. ART is
an effective program for highly aggressive youths.
When delivered competently, ART has an estimated 24 percent
reduction in felony recidivism in 18 months.
CHAIR FRENCH asked who she trains.
MS. AGLOINGA replied she and the other two trainers train both
juvenile justice officers and probation officers.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the ISER study shows just a 6
percent reduction in crime.
MS. AGLOINGA acknowledged that the ISER study reflects more
recent data. Continuing with the presentation she said the
benefit to cost ratio shows that for every dollar spend on ART
the eventual savings in future incarceration costs is $11.66.
2:39:07 PM
She mentioned the following Alaska Juvenile Justice highlights
related to ART:
· Training of ART facilitators began in 2004.
· More than 80 division staff and community partners have
been trained by the 3 active trainers.
· More than 400 youths statewide have attended ART classes.
· Classes are offered to youth under DJJ care in Nome,
Fairbanks, Bethel, Anchorage, Ketchikan and Juneau.
2:40:01 PM
MS. AGLOINGA said ART has three components:
· Structured learning training (SLT) is the behavioral
component. It teaches youth what to do in anger-producing
situations.
· Anger control training (ACT) is the affective component. It
teaches youth what not to do in anger-producing situations.
· Moral Reasoning (MR) is the values component, but it's
actually about perspective and why it's good to use the
other two components.
2:40:37 PM
ART classes:
· Last 10 weeks.
· Meet 3 times per week.
· Have 8 to 12 participants per group.
· Are closed meaning that once a class starts there are no
new entrants.
· Are very interactive. Youths role play real-life situations
in order to practice what they're learning in a safe
environment so they can transfer that information outside
the class setting.
· Are designed for aggressive and violent youths.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this is for youths who are in treatment,
in custody, or a combination.
MS. AGLOINGA replied it can be given in a community facility or
schools. They recognize that different juveniles will respond to
different learning environments and agents so they offer
different styles of teaching to accommodate different needs.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if kids are grouped by age and if this
training is more effective at a particular age.
MS. AGLOINGA explained that youths are grouped by level of need,
but age is given consideration.
2:42:04 PM
The Structured Learning Training curriculum teaches the
following 10 skills to meet angry and aggressive youths'
specific skill deficits:
· Making a complaint.
· Understanding the feelings of others.
· Getting ready for a difficult conversation.
· Dealing with someone else's anger.
· Keeping out of fights.
· Helping others.
· Dealing with an accusation.
· Dealing with group pressure.
· Expressing affection.
· Responding to failure.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what's entailed in making a complaint.
MS. AGLOINGA replied this is a five-step process and the kids
are taught how to go through each step accurately. They practice
by role playing and they're assigned homework so they can try it
at the next meeting.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if kids have always had these
problems or if they're new problems in society.
MS. AGLOINGA replied anger is a natural emotion, but some youths
haven't learned these skill sets.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this is a relatively new problem.
MS. AGLOINGA answered the problem isn't new and this program has
been around since the '70s.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the problem with kids today is
different than the problem with kids of 50 or 100 years ago.
MR. NEWMAN said he believes that the science has gotten better
and is able to refine where the risk factors are coming from and
what can be done about it. This course does a good job of
getting kids to actively talk, to role play, and think about
life in a new way. There's finally research to show what works
and what doesn't, he said.
2:45:17 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if poor parenting is the root of the
juvenile delinquency problem.
MR. NEWMAN said poor parenting is a factor, but it's in
combination with those major risk factors that makes a juvenile
delinquent. Science is better now and is at a point where it can
define the risk factors that matter. He noted that when they
first introduced the youth level of service inventory they were
told that the old assessment tool was at least 20 years old and
asked questions that it's now understood don't matter. For
example, it asked about hygiene, which science now shows doesn't
matter. He noted that they were encouraged to develop a new
assessment tool that uses science and reflects new information
about delinquent behavior.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that it sounds like we're trying
something different after 1,000 years of trying to beat,
confine, or lecture children into submission.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked Ms. Agloinga if she's thought about how
these guidelines could be brought into schools, churches, youth
groups, and into the hands of parents to help them better
understand what can be done to help a child learn how to express
a complaint or respond to failure.
MS. AGLOINGA replied she likes this particular program because
it involves the people who interface with kids. When she's
teaching a class she contacts the parents to let them know what
skill they're working on and that their child will be practicing
that skill when he/she tries to make a complaint at home. She
makes it clear that it's not about the outcome - whether or not
the youth gets whatever he/she is seeking - rather, it's about
trying the skill. She noted that the program is also used on
adults.
2:49:20 PM
MS. AGLOINGA said Anger Control Training is the affective
component; it teaches what not to do in anger-producing
situations to reduce the frequency of getting angry.
Moral Reasoning is the cognitive component of ART and is
designed to help youths make more mature decisions in social
situations. Once a youth has learned what not to do in anger-
producing situations this component helps him/her understand why
he/she might still exhibit angry behaviors.
MS. AGLOINGA clarified that ART is not traditional
psychotherapy, group guidance or advice giving, values training,
or content specific education.
She explained that trained facilitators are certified to teach
ART and any of the three stand-alone components. They are taught
the importance of quality assurance and that fidelity to the
model is fundamental to successful outcomes.
Quality assurance for ART includes:
· Providing all three ART components.
· Offering a complete program.
· Training ART facilitators
· Observing groups.
· Providing feedback.
2:50:41 PM
MS. AGLOINGA highlighted the following quality assurance
efforts:
· The key to reducing recidivism is to deliver this research-
based program competently. This includes:
· Picking the best people to facilitate the
program.
· Ensuring proper training.
· Referring the appropriate youths.
· Ensuring the program is delivered with fidelity
to the model by:
· Assessing facilitator skills.
· Providing statewide guidelines for the
program.
MS. AGLOINGA said she and the other two trainers are passionate
about this program but they all have other full-time jobs. She
has therefore recommended that the director open a position
specifically for quality assurance. In fact, when the program
was evaluated on implementation, one of the recommendations was
to focus on quality assurance efforts.
2:51:39 PM
RAY MICHAELSON, Program Coordinator, Division of Juvenile
Justice, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, (DHSS)
said he appreciates the opportunity to talk about performance-
based standards (PbS). This is a quality improvement program,
which is managed through the Council on Juvenile Corrections
Administrators (CJCA).
CHAIR FRENCH asked if CJCA overarches DJJ and gives a macro look
at what the division is doing.
MR. MICHAELSON replied it's both a micro and macro look at the
conditions of confinement inside the eight youth facilities.
Each of these facilities has a jail where youths go immediately
after arrest. After that they go through adjudication and
eventually on to one of the four correctional facilities that
have detention and treatment programs.
MR. MICHAELSON provided the following PbS timeline:
· 1994 - Congress commissioned a survey looking at conditions
in 1,000 youth facilities nationwide. Poor conditions were
found with regard to mixing populations of youths and
mixing sexes on correctional units and not providing good
healthcare or mental healthcare or education.
· 1998 - The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) developed Performance-based Standards
(PbS). This was to establish a list of about 100 standards
for youth facilities to comply with to achieve good
outcomes in those particular areas.
· 2004 - Alaska joined PbS.
The PbS outcome measures include the following:
· Safety
· Security
· Order
· Health and mental health services
· Justice and legal rights
· Programming
· Reintegration planning
These seven measures range from how safe buildings are for kids and
staff to the kinds of services you provide kids to help ensure their
successful reentry into the community.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what programming refers to in this context.
MR. MICHAELSON explained it captures everything between the
Youth Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory assessment and
the release and referral for follow-up treatment. This is the
largest area of standards.
2:56:32 PM
The quality improvement process that is the PbS program is
divided into a 3-step continuous improvement process.
1. Data collection.
· They keep track of what they do with kids in the
programming areas through youth records.
· They survey kids asking how they feel about being
incarcerated, what they think of their treatment
regime and how they're being treated. And they survey
staff about their view of working in the correctional
facility and with the population. These surveys have
proven to be a goldmine of information upon which to
make good decisions.
· Incident reports.
2. Performance reports.
· These are bar graphs and summary reports that
provide a picture and describe how they're doing
month-to-month and how they compare to all other
PbS participants nationwide.
3. Facility improvement process.
· This includes self-imposed deadlines to look at
the reports for areas of deficiency and embark on
facility improvement plans to raise or lower the
outcomes depending on the standard. For example,
if there are high numbers of youth injuries in a
certain month you might want to create a facility
improvement plan to decrease injuries on the unit
that would show in the next six-month data
collection and improvement cycle.
The 100 outcome measures and standards mentioned previously are
those for the four correctional facilities in the state. About
50 or 60 standards apply to the detention facility. Detention
does not provide all the programming and unique assessments and
treatment opportunities they do for kids.
2:59:36 PM
MR. MICHAELSON displayed a sample graph comparing the Bethel
Youth Detention Facility to the other 207 PbS participants
nationwide with respect to Order 12. This is the average number
of idle waking hours that kids spend on a detention unit during
a 24 hour period. As in any kind of correctional unit, the goal
is to reduce idle waking time. You want kids to be interacting
with appropriate staff and involved in programs like ART and
paying attention at school on a regular basis. Data was
collected twice a year and the graph shows that since 2004 the
Bethel facility had a good facility improvement plan and over
time effectively reduced idled waking time on that unit.
Responding to a question, he clarified that while there are 207
PbS participants nationwide, only 27 states have PbS programs.
MR. MICHAELSON displayed a graph of Programming 1 data, which
shows the percent of youths confined to one of the four
correctional facilities for over six months whose math scores
increased between admission and discharge. The graph provides a
statewide perspective compared to the nationwide scores. He
pointed out that recent outcome measures have been higher than
the field average and credited the school districts and teachers
for providing new programs in the four correctional facilities.
3:03:36 PM
MR. MICHAELSON displayed a graph of Order 3 data, which shows
physical restraint use per 100 person-days of youth confinement.
He said that physically restraining kids is a fact of life in
detention and treatment facilities. Responding to a question, he
explained that this is done primarily to keep the kids from
hurting themselves, but these facilities also have kids who are
abusive and angry and they sometimes act out to hurt other kids
or staff members. When a youth won't stop the self-destructive
or abusive behavior he/she may be physically restrained to help
him/herself regain control. Sometimes handcuffs are used.
MR. MICHAELSON concluded his presentation highlighting the
following successes:
· The Nome Youth Facility has been recognized in a PbS
newsletter nationwide for its good work.
· The Bethel Youth Facility won a national award for
embracing PbS and its production of outcome measures.
· The detention unit at the Fairbanks Youth Facility
reached the highest level possible in April 2009 for
achieving good outcomes on standards.
· In October 2009, 5 of 12 Alaska sites achieved Level 3
status, which shows tremendous improvement.
· Alaska's FIP process was recently recognized and will
continue to be used on the new comprehensive suicide
policy and intake screening.
CHAIR FRENCH thanked the participants.
3:06:26 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
hearing at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ART - Juneau Presentation Updated.pptx |
SJUD 1/27/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Division of Juvenile Justice.pptx |
SJUD 1/27/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| PbS_for_SJC_012710 (final).pptx |
SJUD 1/27/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Senate Judiciary YLS Presentation 012610.pptx |
SJUD 1/27/2010 1:30:00 PM |