Report of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee.

              REPORT OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 15,1999

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... Enabling statute ............................................................................................................................

3 6

Membership of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee .................................................... 9 Subcommittees of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee .............................................. 12 Summary of Deloitte Consulting's recommendations for improving Arizona's Juvenile Justice System ............................................................................................. 13 Minutes of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee meeting held August 24th 1999 ................................................................................................. Appendix A Minutes of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee meeting held September 30, 1999............................................................................................. Appendix B Minutes of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee meeting held November 4, 1999............................................................................................... Appendix C

Executive Summary
In 1998 Deloitte Consulting performed a state-bded audit of the performance and cost effectiveness of Arizona's juvenile justice system. While Deloitte concluded that Arizona had one of the best systems in the nation, it made a number of recommendations for improvement. (A summary of those recommendations can be found beginning on page 13 and a copy of the entire report is available at the Department of Library, Archives, and Public Records). Laws 1999, Chapter 107 (S.B. 1073) established the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee to supervise and assist in the implementation of the Deloitte recommendations and to adopt policies to improve coordination and dissemination of juvenile justice information among state and local agencies. The committee exists until the end of 2001. This is the first of three annual reports to be submitted by the committee. During its first meeting the committee was divided into five subcommittees: Technology Family Involvement and Education; PreventiodIntervention; Finance, and Outcome-based Programs. While the committee as a whole has yet to adopt formal recommendations or establish policies, each of the subcommittees have provided input in this regard. What follows is a summary of the subcommittee's reports and recommendations:

ic

Technology
The Technology Subcommittee reports that, while significant progress has been made toward implementing the Deloitte recommendations, there are many barriers preventing state agencies and counties from efficiently sharing electronic data with one another. These include the lack of a state-wide high speed data network, the inability for various computer systems to communicate with each other once such a network is established, and the lack of training for use of existing applications. The subcommittee concluded that because the Deloitte report was rather vague with regard to who needs what data, it is necessary to make this determination before embarking on a general integration of existing systems. Once it is decided what integration is necessary, the question of funding must be addressed with an ynderstanding that currently no government agency is charged with integrating the exchange of juvenile justice information. While GITA has made itself available as an advisor in accordance with the "No Wrong Door" program, its director explained to the committee that it is not structured to implement, nor oversee, large-scale integration solutions. Whoever is selected to accomplish this must decide what approach is best. The subcommittee reported that a good starting place might be to look at the Pennsylvania Integrated Model or the New York Community Court. The subcommittee urged that a dedicated funding source be established for accomplishing ongoing integration concerns and that DES receive specific funds to aid in its effort to redesign its current data systems, given how beneficial it would be to all juvenile justice agencies to have easier access to DES's information. According to the subcommittee, a link has been successfully established between the Department of Juvenile Corrections electronic information and Maricopa County's Juvenile Online Tracking System (JOLTS). Links to the other counties will be tested by the end of the

year. Additionally, JOLTS data will also be available statewide by the end of the year and the system has been redesigned to accept data from CHILDS (a repository of information on child delinquency cases managed by DES).

Finance
The Finance Subcommittee reports that it is coordinating with JLBC and Legislative Council staff in the production of a financial data summary of all sources and expenditures of juvenile justice funds. It recommends that the Drug and Gang Enforcement Annual Program Summary and the No Wrong Door initiative be utilized in producing the financial data summary. The subcommittee recommends that by the end of the next legislative session an evaluation committee conduct an audit of current juvenile justice financial data and, after consultation with relevant agency directors, create a program inventory form. The subcommittee agrees with Deloitte's recommendation that financial incentives be employed to encourage specified outcomes but also suggests great care be exercised before eliminating funding for programs which may indeed be effective.

Family Involvement and Education
The Family Involvement and Education Subcommittee indicates that juvenile courts have the ability to collect more family-related information about delinquent juveniles and recommends that, under that direction of AOC, all juvenile courts be encouraged to do so in accordance with the Deloitte recommendations. The subcommittee also recommends that contracts with providers of prevention programs focus on family involvement and that the assessment tools used in the juvenile justice system be reevaluated. While the subcommittee believes that family involvement should be encouraged in every aspect of the juvenile justice system, it reported that a recent Arizona appellate court decision declared unconstitutional a statute requiring family members to attend court proceedings as applied to the sister of a juvenile defendant in a drug court program (Katherine S. v. Foreman, 305 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14 (App. Sept. 30, 1999)). The subcommittee does recommend, however, that AOC collect information about parental attendance at formal court proceedings.
-

The subcommittee reports that funding will have to be increased in order to carry out the Deloitte recommendation that the family of delinquent juveniles receive services. The subcommittee recommends the establishment of a family mediation program for incorrigible children as an alternative to juvenile probation oversight.

Subcommittee recommends that a user group comprised of The Prevention/Inte~ention members of existing executive and judicial branch agencies be created to determine the feasibility of carrying out the Deloitte recommendation that a state-wide juvenile delinquency prevention coordinating committee be created out of an existing agency. If the user group determines such an approach is feasible, it could further decide the appropriate composition of such a committee and its level of authority in planning statewide prevention activities.

In response to the Deloitte suggestion that the concepts of diversion and prevention be clarified, the subcommittee recommends that the definition of prevention activities utilized by the Wisconsin Department of Education be adopted and that the state statutory definition of diversion be emphasized. The Wisconsin approach seeks to avoid inappropriate juvenile behaviors by providing necessary resources to confront stressful life conditions and by promoting specified characteristics in children. State statue refers to diversion as the avoidance of formal court proceedings. The subcommittee recommends that state-funded programs need to be evaluated using standardized outcome measurements and interagency data exchange to determine which programs are successful and which are not. The subcommittee favors use of the Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center's effective practices guide as a tool for determining continued funding, but cautions against limiting funding to the few programs in that guide identified as model or promising programs. Evaluation strategies utilized in the states of Washington and Colorado are being reviewed by the subcommittee as approaches that might be beneficial in Arizona. The subcommittee solicited responses to the Deloitte report from relevant state and local agencies reviewed by the audit. Those responses received by the subcommittee can be found at Appendix C, Attachment D. Outcome-based Programs The Outcome-based Programs Subcommittee emphasizes the importance of evaluating individual progress as well as the system's response to stopping delinquent behavior. The subcommittee recommends that statistics about adjudicated juveniles be compiled in the following areas: progress toward court-ordered victim restitution; performance of court-ordered community service; school attendance; drug use; identification of positive family relationships; recidivism; and escapes from secure care. The Department of Juvenile Corrections reports that, with the assistance of a U.S. Justice Department grant, it has begun to put in place the national model for Performance Based Standards. ADJC's success will be compared with that of 3 1 other facilities around the country participating in the program. The subcommittee advocates for the identification and elimination of unsuccessful juvenile programs. The subcommittee also recommends the identification of successful programs in the areas of school drop out prevention, family education programs, and prevention and intervention programs generally.

,

Z

Y

House E n g r o s s e d S e n a t e B i l l

State o f Arizona Senate Forty-fourth Legis l ature F i r s t Regular Session 1999

CHAPTER 107

SENATE BILL 1073

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

Be i t e n a c t e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f t h e S t a t e o f A r i z o n a : S e c t i o n l 1 . l I J u v e n i l e .justice c o o r d i n a t i n q committee: members: duties A. I [ T h e juvenile justice coordinating committee is established c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g members who have knowledge o f o r e x p e r i e n c e i n j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e and r e l a t e d i s s u e s : 1. I [ T h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f economic s e c u r i t y o r t h e d i r e c t o r ' s designee. 2 . I I T h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of p u b l i c i n s t r u c t i o n o r t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s designee. 3.1 ] T h e a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r o f t h e d i v i s i o n o f b e h a v i o r a l h e a l t h i n t h e department o f h e a l t h s e r v i c e s o r t h e a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r ' s designee. 4.11The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o r t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s d e s i g n e e . 5.1 IThe d i r e c t o r o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e o f t h e c o u r t s o r t h e d i r e c t o r ' s designee. 6.1 1Two p r e s i d i n g j u d g e s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t who a r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e supreme c o u r t . One j u d g e s h a l l be f r o m an u r b a n c o u n t y and one j u d g e s h a l l be from a r u r a l c o u n t y . 7 . I I Two d i r e c t o r s o f j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e r v i c e s who a r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e supreme c o u r t . One d i r e c t o r s h a l l be f r o m an u r b a n c o u n t y and one d i r e c t o r s h a l l be f r o m a r u r a l c o u n t y .

8.1 [ A c l e r k o f t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t who i s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e supreme c o u r t . 9 . I I T h e p r e s i d e n t of t h e county supervisors a s s o c i a t i o n o r t h e p r e s i d e n t ' s designee. One c o u n t y 1 0 . I I T w o c o u n t y a t t o r n e y s who a r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e g o v e r n o r . a t t o r n e y s h a l l be f r o m an u r b a n c o u n t y and one c o u n t y a t t o r n e y s h a l l be from a r u r a l county. 11. I I The d i r e c t o r o f t h e department o f j u v e n i l e c o r r e c t i o n s o r t h e d i r e c t o r ' s designee. 12.1 1The chairman o f t h e A r i z o n a j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e commission. 13.1 [ A n e x e c u t i v e a s s i s t a n t o r s t a f f member who i s f r o m t h e o f f i c e o f t h e g o v e r n o r and who i s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e g o v e r n o r . 14.1 /One j u v e n i l e t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e r o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r who i s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e A r i z o n a c o u n c i l o f c e n t e r s f o r c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . The A r i z o n a c o u n c i l o f c e n t e r s f o r c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s s h a l l n o t i f y t h e supreme c o u r t on making t h i s a p p o i n t m e n t . 15. I I Two p e r s o n s who a r e know1 edgeabl e i n j u v e n i 1 e j u s t i c e i s s u e s , one o f whom i s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e s e n a t e and one o f whom i s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e speaker o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . 16.1 [One p e r s o n who i s f r o m t h e e x e c u t i v e committee o f t h e j u v e n i l e l a w s e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e b a r o f A r i z o n a and who i s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e supreme c o u r t . 17.1 1 One p e r s o n who i s f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s community and who i s a p p o i n t e d j o i n t l y by t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e s e n a t e and t h e speaker o f t h e house o f representatives. 1 8 . 1 1Three members o f t h e s e n a t e . n o t more t h a n t w o o f whom r e p r e s e n t t h e same p o l i t i c a l p a r t y and who a r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e senate. 19.1 1Three members o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , n o t more t h a n t w o o f whom r e p r e s e n t t h e same p o l i t i c a l p a r t y and who a r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e speaker o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . B.1 / A m a j o r i t y o f t h e committee members who a r e p r e s e n t a t t h e f i r s t committee m e e t i n g s h a l l s e l e c t a chairman f r o m among t h e members o f t h e committee. C . 1 [ T h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e c o o r d i n a t i n g committee s h a l l s u p e r v i s e and a s s i s t i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e a u d i t recommendations s u b m i t t e d t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e by t h e company h i r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e c o m m i t t e e t o s t u d y juvenile j u s t i c e issues i n t h i s s t a t e . The j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e c o o r d i n a t i n g committee s h a l l adopt p o l i c i e s f o r t h e b e t t e r c o o r d i n a t i o n and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f j u v e n i 1e j u s t i c e i n f o r m a t i o n between c i t y , c o u n t y and s t a t e a g e n c i e s t h a t deal w i t h j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s . The j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e c o o r d i n a t i n g committee s h a l l submit an annual r e p o r t c o n c e r n i n g j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e i s s u e s on o r b e f o r e November 15 o f each y e a r t o t h e g o v e r n o r , t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e supremecourt. t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e senate and t h e speaker o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and p r o v i d e a copy o f t h i s r e p o r t t o t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e and t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e department o f l i b r a r y , a r c h i v e s and p u b l i c r e c o r d s . D . I I Members o f t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e c o o r d i n a t i n g c o m m i t t e e who a r e a p p o i n t e d p u r s u a n t t o s u b s e c t i o n A , p a r a g r a p h s 13 t h r o u g h 16 a r e n o t e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e compensation b u t a r e e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e reimbursement o f expenses p u r s u a n t t o t i t l e 38. c h a p t e r 4 , a r t i c l e 2. A r i z o n a R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s . E . 1 / T h e committee may use t h e s e r v i c e s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a f f .

%

Y

S e c . 1 2 . 1 1Delaved r e ~ e a l Section 1 o f t h i s act. r e l a t i n g t o the juvenile j u s t i c e coordinating c o m m i t t e e , i s r e p e a l e d f r o m and a f t e r December 31. 2 0 0 1 . S e c . 1 3 . 1 IEmerqencv T h i s a c t i s an emergency measure t h a t i s n e c e s s a r y t o p r e s e r v e t h e p u b l i c p e a c e , h e a l t h o r s a f e t y and i s o p e r a t i v e i m m e d i a t e l y as p r o v i d e d b y l a w .

Membership of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee
House Three members of the House of Representatives, not more than two from the same political party, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Loredo, Verkamp, Voss Three members of the Senate, not more than two from the same political party, appointed by the President of the Senate: Smith, Solomon, Spitzer The Attorney General or the Attorney General's designee: Mr. Dennis Burke, Office of the Attorney General, 15 South 15th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602-542-4266, Fax: 602-542-4085 The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts or the Director's designee: Mr. Frank Carmen, Director, Juvenile Justice Services Div, Administative Office of the Courts, 1501 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602-542-9450, Fax: 602-542-9479 The Director of the Department of Economic Security or the Director's designee: Mr. John L. Clayton, Director, Department of Economic Security, 1717 West Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 6123, 060A, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602-542-5678, Fax: 602-542-5339 One executive assistant or staff member who is from the Office of the Governor, appointed by the Governor: Ms. Marilee Dal Pra, Juvenile Justice Program Administrator, Governor's Office, Div. of Children, 1700 West Washington, 1st Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602-542-3199, Fax: 602-542-4644 One juvenile treatment provider or administrator, appointed by the Arizona Council of Centers for Children and Adults: Mr. Tim Dunst, Touchstone Community, 6153 West Olive Avenue, Glendale, Arizona 85302, Work ph.: 623-930-8705, Fax: 623-930-7652 The President of the County Supervisors Association or the President's designee: Mr. Gene Fisher, President, County Supervisors Association, 1108 Joshua Avenue, Parker, Arizona 85344, Work ph.: 520-669-6115, Fax: 520-669-9709 The Director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections or the Director's designee: Mr. David Gaspar, Director, Department of Juvenile Corrections, 1624 West Adams Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602-542-3987, Fax: 602542-5156

Senate

Other

One Clerk of the Superior Court, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Honorable Sue Hall, Clerk of the Court, Apache County Superior Court, P.O. Box 365, St. Johns, Arizona 85936, Work ph.: 520-337-4364 x261, Fax: 520-337-2771 One member of the Executive Committee of the Juvenile Law Section of the State Bar of Arizona, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Mr. Peter Hochuli, Arizona State Bar, Juvenile Law Section, 2335 East Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona 85713, Work ph.: 520-740-2991, Fax: 520-770-9212 One member knowledgeable in juvenile justice issues, appointed by the President of the Senate: Mr. John Kaites, Law Offices of Hoffman and Kaites, 5110 North Central #301, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, Work ph.: 602-234-9775, Fax: 602-234-9733 One county attorney from an urban county, appointed by the Governor: Ms. Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney, 32 North Stone Street, 14th Floor, Tucson, Arizona 85701, Work ph.: 520-740-5600, Fax: 520-791-3946 One county attorney from a rural county, appointed by the Governor: Ms. Patricia Orozco, Yuma County Attorney, 168 South 2nd Avenue, Yuma, Arizona 85364, Work ph.: 520-329-2270, Fax: 520-329-2284 The Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Superintendent's designee: Ms. Laura Penny, Department of Education, 1535 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602-542-0558, Fax: 602-542-5440 The Chairman of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission: Mr. Dennis Pickering, Chairman, Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, 1825 East Northern Avenue, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85020, Work ph.: 602-861-0625, Fax: 602-331-0990 One Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court from an urban county, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: = Judge Maurice Portley, Maricopa County Superior Court, 1810 South Lewis Street, Mesa, Arizona 85210, Work ph.: 602-506-2306, Fax: 602-506-2852 One member from the business community, appointed jointly by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Mr. Dan Rabil, CypressIAmex Copper Marketing, 891 N. David Court, Chandler, Arizona 85226, Work ph.: 480-929-4576, Fax: 480-961-5092 One member knowledgeable in juvenile justice issues, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Mr. Robert Rice, 12750 North 113 Way, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259, Work ph.: 480-661-1594 One director of juvenile court services from an urban county, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

Mr. Donald Shaw, Administrator/Director, Juvenile Court Services, Pima County Superior Court, 2225 East Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona 85713, Work ph.: 520-740-2067, Fax: 520-798-1942 The Assistant Director of the Division of Behavioral Health in the Department of Health Services or the Assistant Director's designee: Mr. Ronald Smith, Assistant Director, Division of Behavioral Health, Dept. of Health Services, 2122 East Highland, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, Work ph.: 602-381-8999, Fax: 602-553-9140 One Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court from a rural county, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Honorable Monica Stauffer, Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Greenlee County Superior Court, P.O. Box 1296, Clifton, Arizona 85533, Work ph.: 520-865-3872, Fax: 520-865-5358 One director of juvenile court services from a rural county, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Ms. Myrtle Young, Director, Juvenile Court Services, Cochise County Superior Court, P.O. Box 4219, Bisbee, Arizona 85603, Work ph.: 520-4325458, Fax: 520-432-0393

STAFF: S-Rick Pyper, H-Jodi Jerich REPORT DATE: 11/15/1999, 1111512000, 1111512001 EXPIRATION DATE: 1213 112001 SESSION LAW CITE: Laws 1999, Chapter 107

. t

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee
Sub-committees
Technology Dave Byers, chair Rep. Verkamp Rep. Voss

Gene Fisher Linda Meisner, ex oficio

Family Involvement and Education Laura Penny Judge Portley, chair Sen. Solomon Ron Smith Anna Arnold PreventionIIntervention Marilee Dal Pra, chair Rep. Loredo Judge Stauffer Patricia Orozco Outcome-Based Programs Don Shaw. chair Sen. Smith Tim Dunst Finance Dennis Pickering, chair Sen. Spitzer Sue Hall Peter Hochuli Robert Rice Myrtle Young

David Gaspar Frank Owen, ex officio

Dennis Burke Frank Carmen, ex oficio

Prevention Arizona should continue to fund delinquencyprevention programs. Arizona delinquency prevention programs should be re-focused to actively involve families. Prevention programs should be initiated and developed at the community level and a statewide coordinating committee should be authorized to provide support. Arizona should require basic program data to be collected by all state funded prevention programs and develop outcome measures to assess the value of its prevention programs.

-

Diversion Continue to develop and refine diversion programs throughout the state. Develop standardized performance and outcome measures for implementation across all diversion programs Increase family involvement in diversion programs. Clarify definitions of diversion and prevention. Probation AOC and county probation departments must continue the development of performance and outcome measures. Performance and outcome measures should be developed specifically for treatment programs. AOC and county probation should develop a specific plan designed to increase family involvement in the probation process. AOC and county probation, in conjunction with ADJC, must develop and support a single information system. Treatment AOC and ADJC should work with treatment providers to develop meaningful performance and outcome measures. AOC should develop H plan to expand substance abuse treatment services statewide and to develop residential treatment options in rural areas where there are service gaps. AOC should take the lead in creating fiscal and program incentives to encourage the elimination of barriers to collaborative service delivery. Detention With guidelines developed by the AOC, the counties should develop and maintain detention performance and outcome measures. AOC, ADJC, and the counties should study alternative uses of detention facilities with services as an alternative to other consequences. AOC should work with the counties to improve detention risk assessment tools. AOC should work with the counties to enhance the consistency of detention accounting procedures.

+

Summary of Deloitte Consulting Recommendations for Improving Arizona's Juvenile Justice System

State Institutions

The implementation of performance and outcome measures must continue as an ADJC priority. ADJC, in conjunction with AOC and the county probation departments, must develop and support a single information system that will provide the basis for effective performance and outcomes measurements. = ADJC should analyze the daily cost variances between the state institutions to determine if the cost differentials are justified. ADJC should increase specialized treatment services with an emphasis on substance abuse, and develop a comprehensive life skills program for all secure care facilities ADJC should work with the facilities and probation and parole Officers to ensure that comprehensive, meaningful and accurate information is documented in the case files in a timely and organized fashion, and ADJC must continue to collaborate with AOCIJJSD, ADES, ADHGS, ADE, local agencies and community organizations to insure that children and youth are receiving all necessary services. The implementation of performance and outcome measures must continue as an ADJC priority. ADJC, in conjunction with AOC and the county probation departments, must develop and support a single information system that will provide the basis for effective performance and outcomes measurements. ADJC should analyze the daily cost variances between the state institutions to determine if the cost differentials are justified. ADJC should increase specialized treatment services with an emphasis on substance abuse, and develop a comprehensive life skills program for all Secure Care facilities. ADJC should work with the facilities and probation and parole officers to ensure that comprehensive, meaningful and accurate information is documented in the case files in a timely and organized fashion, and ADJC must continue to collaborate with AOCIJJSD, ADES, ADHS, ADE, local agencies and community organizations to insure that children and youth are receiving all necessary services. Post Secure Care Automation and the implementation of performance measures must continue as an ADJC priority in conjunction with AOC and county probation departments An evaluation of the newly established ADJC Graduated Continuum of Care Model must be completed to determine if resources are being utilized effectively. Collaboration must be ongoing between all the players in the Arizona juvenile justice service continuum. Involvement of Families Arizona prevention programs should be refocused to actively involve families in all aspects of services and activities. To the degree they are not doing so, judges should exercise their authority to order family members into parenting classes, other appropriate treatment services and shared consequences with their child. Provide reimbursement rates should acknowledge and be contingent upon a proactive effort to involve the family in the treatment plan.

Outcome targets and measures should be established and monitored related to family functioning before and after treatment. Probation and parole officers should continue to conduct family assessments much like those done in the conditional liberty. All results and information about the family, their social and economic status and other special needs or considerations should be documented in the case file and appropriate information systems. This data should be updated as appropriate when progress is made or circumstances change for the family. Ideally, this information should be recorded in an automated case management system so that the information can be readily exchanged with other stakeholders.

Collective Ownership by Use of Outcomes The Governor and the Legislature must take the lead in creating an environment of collective ownership by holding all players in this system accountable to the same outcome. Statewide performance and outcome measures and associated targets must be established that all are accountable for. This would include developing economic incentives so there is a reward for winning. Collaboration Arizona should not initiate a large-scale reorganization as the way to achieve collaborative service delivery. Arizona should adopt statutory policy principles that can guide future policy decisions and the delivery of comprehensive services to children, youth and their families. Arizona should establish a state level policy council where the primary focus is the improvement of coordination and collaborative service delivery. ADJC and AOCIJJSD should strongly consider pooling their resources to solve the rural problem of insufficient services available in their communities. An entity, similar to the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, should be authorized to be responsible for coordination and technical support for Arizona regional and local delinquency prevention efforts. Joint Technology Support Free and easy exchange of information and data is a criterion to realize the full value of collaboration. All the players, including AOC, ADJC, ADE, ADES and ADHSIBHS and the counties need to develop a strategic systems plan to comprehensively support the Arizona juvenile justice system. Establish a requirement that they build the capacity to interface and support data exchange and use with other human service agencies in the state. Given the wide variety of technology platforms in the state, this is likely going to have to be accomplished through use of: A data warehouse, and lor Some other type of technology middle ware. AOCIJJDS must continue to move toward a single information system that contains accurate, meaningful and consistent data to allow the basis for effective performance and outcome measurement.

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMllTEE Minutes of the Meeting Tuesday, August 24,1999 9:00 a.m. - Senate Hearing Room 1 Members Present: Senator Tom Smith Senator Ruth Solomon Senator Marc Spitzer Representative John Verkamp Representative John Loredo Tim Dunst Laura Penny Dennis Burke Peter Hochuli Gene Fisher Ronald Smith Members Absent: Representative Roberta Voss

Dennis Pickering David K. Byers Anna Arnold for John Clayton David Gaspar Sue Hall The Honorable Maurice Portley The Honorable Monica Stauffer Myrtle Young Marilee DalPra Donald Shaw Patricia Orozco

Barbara LaWall

Staff: Rick Pyper, Senate Research Analyst Glen Davis, Senate Minority Staff Analyst Senator Smith called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. and attendance was noted. For additional attendees, see Sign-In Sheet (Attachment A). ELECTION OF A CHAIRPERSON Senator Smith opened the floor to nominations. Representative Verkamp nominated Senator Smith for chair of the Committee. Senator Spitzer seconded the nomination. There being no further nominations, the Committee voted unanimously that Senator Smith chair the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee (JJCC). Senator Smith asked each member to introduce themselves. PRESENTATION BY DELOITTE CONSULTING Senator Smith stated that over the last few years Deloitte held a study on the programs for juveniles deferred from the adult courts. The State has spent $600,000 on this study, which was presented to the Judiciary Committee during session this year. Senator Smith indicated he feels this is a very important report, and that it can be
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 1

--

shelved and ignored, or this Committee can act upon the recommendations and begin implementation. Senator Smith said the recommendations are a "means to the end," and the purpose of this Committee is to assist in the implementation of the audit recommendations to the Legislature by Deloitte Consulting. He noted that reports from this Committee must be completed by November 15, 1999. Senator Smith commented that the membership has grown since the Committee's inception, and that he has no objections to that. He stated it will take time and effort to coordinate the recommendations. He noted that subcommittees will be appointed following the report by Deloitte Consulting, and that everyone is welcome to express opinions to reach the common goal. Senator Smith continued that the State cannot afford to continue to "lock people up." He stated the juveniles are the key and that programs must be developed to assist them.
Bobbie Wilbur, Deloitte Consulting, stated she is the partner responsible for the report, and welcomes the opportunity to speak to this new committee to implement significant changes in the State of Arizona. Ms. Wilbur noted the Committee has a copy of a summary of the report (Attachment B) presented to the Judiciary Committee in January. She explained Deloitte looked at the programs after the juvenile has been arrested, as the recommendations are connected to what happens to the youth in the program. Deloitte also studied the cost effectiveness of the program.

Ms. Wilbur stated Deloitte worked closely with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) collecting and collating information, and conducting extensive meetings with all the providers and agencies and with every county. She noted they spent extensive time "getting through the juvenile continuum." Ms. Wilbur indicated page 5 of the report explains how Deloitte viewed the system. She noted this Committee is the continuum. The report highlights how complex the juvenile justice system is, and that there are a lot of people who must work together. When prevention is added, it becomes more complex. Ms. Wilbur turned to page 33, and explained one of the most significant findings is that, compared to juvenile justice systems across the United States and the quality of people in the system, Arizona has one of the best systems in the Nation. Ms. Wilbur said that does not mean that Arizona is "done" and there is a lot of work remaining in order to make a difference with the youth and their families. She stated the Committee should focus on the Core recommendations, which Deloitte made recognizing the State has the "players" and that it has a solid system with which to work. The first recommendation, which impacts the entire juvenile justice system, is involvement of the families. She said that family involvement is minimal, and that quantifiable data is nearly non-existent. Ms. Wilbur noted that the Department of Corrections has, in its conditional liberty program, a plan to engage the families. However good that plan is, it is late in the system. She noted that (when interviewed) providers said involving the family is fundamental to their work, but is often not possible
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 2

because these families are difficult to work with. She pointed out that if the system cannot work with them, the youth cannot work with them either when sent back home. Ms. Wilbur stated that "family" should mean everyone involved in that youth's life, not just the immediate family. Senator Smith commented that during his tenure as a school principal he found that little could be done with the youth until the family was involved, and he supports this concept. Ms. Wilbur replied it was seen in a number of different areas. She mentioned the prevention programs do a good job in working with the youth, but often do not involve the family. Mr. Byers asked for comments from the members of the courts about what problems they are encountering. Myrtle Young, Director, Juvenile Court Services, Cochise County, stated that sometimes the programs work with large groups of children, and the families are "off to the side.'' She said it is difficult to involve them, and the court is always looking for solutions. Donald Shaw, Director, Juvenile Court Services, Pima County, stated he thought one of the problems was in the system, which targets an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. arena and does not expand its time to accommodate the families. The other problem is just getting the families in. He noted there are a lot of different issues. Senator Solomon clarified that prevention and involving families included two subsets, one of which is "kids" already in the system. She said she presumes that Ms. Wilbur is talking about prevention "from conception," and having healthy families, involving teachers and schools, and treating all members of the family for such things as alcohol abuse, domestic violence, behavioral health and substance abuse. Ms. Wilbur agreed, and said the schools are critical to this program. However, once the children are in the system, there is a lack of parental involvement. Some of the officials in the outlying counties have a conflict with ordering the parents to be involved with the delinquent child because of the impact it may have on other children in the family. All options must be explored, and many officials felt there are few options available. She noted many district attorneys are beginning a program that involves the family the moment the youth has any entry-level delinquent behavior. Ms. Wilbur said she realizes that the parental involvement is being approached in many parts of the system, but there needs to be more of it. She also commented that in rural counties many probation officers know the families well, and may be relying on personal knowledge rather than documentation about what is done for the youth and the families. She said it is difficult to quantify this type of involvement. She said all of the families have situations in which the involvement of another agency would be beneficial.
Ms. Wilbur directed the Committee to page 37 of the report. She said by design, and not unique to Arizona, there are a lot of players who play a role in the youth's supervision, i.e. police officers and probation officers. She said there are a lot of "hand-offs" of that
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 3

youth and no one has enough influence and control of that youth and his behavior to feel significant about his outcome. She noted that 70% of youth entering the juvenile justice system never come back into the system. Ms. Wilbur stated that 30% are repeat offenders and return time after time. She mentioned that one recommendation had been to combine agencies into one program, but that has been tried and does not work. She noted that when the Department of Economic Security (DES) was formed. it was intended to place human services agencies together and serve the families together. She stated that categorical financing and complex programs prevent that, together with the inadequate staffing. Deloitte's recommendation is that the Committee focus on outcomes and hold all agencies responsible for the outcome. The second part of the recommendation is to find enough money to "sweeten the deal" for all the agencies involved. She recognized that it is a limited resource program. Ms. Wilbur stated that was why the recommendation to form a committee such as this Coordinating Committee was made. No one agency has the power, but collectively, the Committee has the resources to study the programs, determine the results and remove the barriers such as categorical financing. It has to find ways to use resources collectively and collaboratively. Ms. Wilbur gave an example of some of the programs tried, which are good, but are not complete. One is the interagency case management committee, which has good fundamental tenants. She noted the problem here is that the barriers are not broken down for the case manager, who must still report to three different accounting and reporting systems. Ms. Wilbur reiterated that there is some fundamental collaboration that needs to occur, and the outcomes can make that occur. She said without looking at outcomes for the continuum, one cannot look at outcomes for a single agency. The Committee must look at outcomes for the whole to make sure that as a youth is "handed-off' he is receiving the proper course of action. Senator Smith stated there has been an improvement in communications between agencies. He noted that many years ago, the agencies did not talk to each other. He noted that the Interagency Case Management Project (ICMP) has improved, but each agency still has to send its own computer down there and there is data sharing. He felt that should be eliminatd. Senator Smith noted that the courts have done a lot toward outcome measures and are writing those types of things into their contracts. He said the Legislature is concerned and is asking that the programs demonstrate their success in order to be funded. He acknowledged there is a long way to go. Mr. Byers stated that one of the problems is that nobody in State government is responsible for the "middle ware" or coordinating the system. He noted the Legislature, through the budget process, has eliminated that possibility. Each part of government has a budget for itself over which it has control, and there is no way to fund a middle ware system to link everyone. He said the agencies cannot take on a project for which they have no responsibility. Senator Smith stated that is why the Government Information Technology Agency (GITA) was invited to this meeting, and it is hoped GITA will be the agency that is going
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 4

to be able to coordinate all the efforts. He said he thinks GlTA is the one to be responsible for working with the agencies. Senator Solomon stated she thinks with regard to "CHILDSn there is good communication going on, although she noted some disagreed. She mentioned the Governor's project "No Wrong Door" and wondered how that will help in the efforts of this Committee. She noted it is technology driven. Ronald Smith, Assistant Director, Behavioral Health Services, said he does not disagree with the report Ms. Wilbur is presenting, although he feels that there has been a lot of improvement. He mentioned that many children's agencies were voluntarily joining ICMP and are trying to improve collaboration. He asked how Deloitte viewed the resources in the system. Mr. Smith contended that when you try for performance outcome to improve a system that is already under-resourced, adverse situations often arise. Ms. Wilbur said that leads to the fourth recommendation of joint technology support. She said she agrees with the statements made today, and established that ADJC and ADOC are working on limited budgets, but are working together and trying to put their systems together. She noted these systems are categorical and communication between and around them does not happen. She related some instances where Deloitte has tried to find the information in different systems and could not. Ms. Wilbur said she believes that the State does not have to take on every outcome, but taking on some that are critical and essential to the State is important. She noted that two to four key outcomes should be selected and approached. Ms. Wilbur warned against unintended outcomes. She felt that this Committee could manage within the context of proper outcomes and not measure everything. She said performance measures and outcome measures are often mixed and should not be. Ms. Wilbur is recommending only outcome measures and how the youth is doing in the community after going through the system. She cautioned them to go slowly and judiciously. Mr. Smith clarified that the State can improve in collaboration as the agencies are not getting the best results they could, and the systems are not working together. He said resources are scarce, so no one should expect to achieve the perfect system, but should be targeting areas in which the State can make progress. Mr. Shaw said that the State has just upgraded the risk instrument, and over the next three to six months will be putting it into place. There are five or six basic elements which measure the likelihood of repeat offenders. He said the Committee should start with the opposite of that and determine what can be done to reduce the risk factors. David Gaspar, Director, Department of Juvenile Corrections, stated one opportunity ADJC has is to become involved in a performance-based system designed nationally for juvenile corrections facilities and detention centers. He noted it is a pilot program which is four years old. Arizona has been selected as an additional jurisdiction to do performance-based standards for its institutional operations and will be over the next 18
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 5

months, starting in October. Mr. Gaspar stated ADJC will be working with the courts and detention centers as one of the responsibilities is to evaluate the detention centers as an agency. Consistent with Mr. Shaw's statement, Mr. Gaspar noted that ADJC has designed a risk assessment program in tandem with the courts, although ADJC is at the "back end" of the system in Arizona. There are five areas that are studied on risk to reoffend, and the program is geared toward those who reoffend. He said this is why outcome studies of those released show only a 20% recidivism rate because ADJC is targeting those very issues which help a young person be successful in society. Ms. Wilbur suggested these efforts should be increased to achieve an agreement level that all the agencies and scholastic institutions can accept. She implied it should engage the entire human services system. Mr. Byers said there is another Governor's statutory group on gangs and noted that many of those present serve on that group. He said it has developed prevention indicators which the Governor has adopted. He thought the Committee should acquire those and study them, rather than redo the effort. Senator Smith agreed wholeheartedly, adding that successful ideas should be shared rather than everyone working in little groups solving the same problems. Ms. Wilbur said that Deloitte encourages Arizona to take the chance to make a difference for the youth and families of the State. Representative Loredo referred to the recommendation on page 34. He questioned if extra money was recommended for additional case workers as he feels the case workers are overloaded, and delve into the family counseling recommended here. Ms. Wilbur recommended that the issues be understood and a target set, as well as understanding the barriers preventing the family involvement. If it is money, that needs to be focused on. Representative Loredo stated this is a big issue, and as a case worker, he would have liked to counsel the families of the youth he had. He reiterated he barely had time to counsel the youth, let alone the family. If bringing the family into the plan is required, then more case workers must be hired.
-

Representative Loredo addressed page 35 and the assessments such as conditional liberty. He stated everyone he knows in the probation or parole areas has told him how overloaded they are. He said it is typical of government to want the world, but neither give the time nor funds to do the job. He said the Legislature should "break out of the box," and do something about it. Senator Smith said the last step is to supervise the execution, which is what is normally not done. A wonderful report is paid for, and then it is set aside. The purpose of this Committee is to supervise the implementation of these recommendations. Senator Smith said if a point is reached where a case worker could have only five cases, then it should be attempted, but the Committee should be realistic in its approach; and if it cannot be achieved, then it will be redefined. He said to walk away from a report of this type is "asinine."
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 6

Representative Loredo stated there are a lot of implications not stated in the report and he just wants the Committee to be realistic and make the proper recommendations. He said he wants to do what it takes to get the job done and to have this report be totally true.

John Kelly, Director, GITA, addressed the Committee and said the Chair was placing a lot of expectations on the agency. He offered the following information about GITA: the agency is about two years old and is living with decisions made five to thirty years ago in terms of information systems; there is a staff of only 17 people compared to the other agencies. He said it is truly the "tail wagging the dog." Mr. Kelly stated he will assist the Committee in every means possible and hopes his agency has the stamina to follow through. He said that is where previous efforts have fallen short. Mr. Kelly explained GlTA was created by the Legislature to accomplish strategic coordination for the information technology investments for the State of Arizona's executive branch state agencies. He said GlTA does not operate data bases and does not offer middle ware solutions. GlTA has technical experts and a number of business and planning analysts. Mr. Kelly said GITA is the "ivory tower" of information technology in state government. The two main authorities it has are: an oversight function for any agency which is going to invest more than $25,000 to develop an information system or to enhance an existing functionality; and it has the requirement on agencies to submit three-year strategic information technology plans. Mr. Kelly noted that previously the Department of Administration (DOA) had the function of receiving the plans. It would read the plans and determine they were complete, then they would be shelved and never studied again. It has been determined that this was a waste of time for both the agency and the DOA. Mr. Kelly indicated the change to having GlTA receive these plans has been phenomenal. The information that GlTA is already able to produce is exceptional. In the future, it will be able to tell the agencies where they are overlapping on information and suggest they coordinate their efforts.
Mr. Kelly noted that what Mr. Byers said is true; there is no enterprise funding mechanism, and there are several agencies with centralized operational responsibilities. The DOA Information Services Division is one, and DES is another. Within DES he noted there are five different "silos" of information systems because it is a massive agency. All the financial incentives are driven to funding in the silos and not across the entire enterprise. Mr. Kelly said he does not have any insightful suggestions in that area. Mr. Kelly noted that in the last session of the Legislature GITA received authority to create a modest "step in the right direction" to demonstrate how enterprise funding m~ght of some assistance. He noted that Senator Smith was part of the decision to be create an innovation fund. There was money available in a technology revolving fund, and from that $1 million is being made available each year. Through that fund, two agencies can apply together for customer-service-driven-information technology development. Mr. Kelly said this will give them an incentive to work together to meet needs. It is designed to help on small projects where agencies can learn to collaborate
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 7

and learn how to institutionalize collaboration. Mr. Kelly referred to the Governor's "No Wrong Door" policy and said GlTA is the project manager for the outside consultants working on that, and a draft has been produced for a strategic information technology plan. This draft is available to the members of the steering committee on the web for draft comments. An extensive inventory of the different systems used by the human services agencies and all the data they collect is provided as well. Mr. Kelly said there are nine to ten pieces of information that are collected by 98% of the systems, although it is captured in different ways, thereby not allowing people to obtain the same information through "different doors." The goal is to provide common information to all agencies no matter what "door" they use to go into the system. Mr. Kelly said there are decisions that Governor Hull is making about the second phase. He noted there has been discussion today about case management and performance management. He urged those two discussions be kept separate. He said the information for case management is very different from that of performance measurement, and the information you need to determine whether performance is being met is sometimes "owned by others," i.e., the police department or the probation department. Mr. Kelly noted that the recommendation which is most important is that the "No Wrong Door" project is not planning to redo complete systems of agencies. There are some significant problems in infrastructure in the State, i.e., no statewide area network to connect the various offices. It is in the process of being built. The DES has 10,000 employees and at least 7,000 of them do not have access to personal computers. They are using "dumb" terminals throughout the agency. Mr. Kelly noted this is a huge undertaking, which DES has hoped to solve but has run into procurement issues and must redesign the project. The purpose of "No Wrong Door" is to identify the projects that can be done now, i.e., screening and referral, and build on that. Mr. Kelly said to think in small steps where his agency can be helpful, and he will assist however possible. Representative Verkamp said one of his concerns is that he has been told these systems will be put together for 19 years. He ran a bill last session to try to change the structure of DES. He asked Mr. Kelly if there is any coordination between the courts and DES. Mr. Kelly said there is close collaboration on child support enforcement activities. There are other opportunities to collaborate. He mentioned that David Byers is on the Information Technology Statutory Committee, which is a board that oversees his agency's review of projects which cost over $1 million, and had been working with the Director of DES. He said that collaboration is expected to continue with the new director of DES. Representative Verkamp said he has seen numerous directors in the last 19 years, and the problem is never straightened out. He commented that the agency is too big and has major problems and may not be able to put the information together within the
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 8

agency and then coordinate with other agencies. He also added there is room for improvement in the child support collection activities. Judge Maurice Portley, Maricopa County Superior Court, stated that the DES workers and assistant attorney generals have the ability to access the juvenile on-line tracking system (JOLT). In dependency cases, they are trying to work it out to get information electronically and as quickly as possible. He noted the opportunity is ongoing. Representative Verkamp clarified that Judge Portley feels this program is successful to this point. He added that the courts need to know what is happening at DES. Judge Portley replied the effort is being made to develop that system. He said it is important for DES to take a look at JOLT and see what hearings are scheduled. The DES reports on file must be accessed quickly, and it is important that the courts have the information before the hearing. Sometimes it is faxed over one hour before, but that is not suitable. It would be much better to access the information online. He noted that John Barrett, Research Planner at CPS, is working on this program. Senator Smith noted that the JOLT system is not being utilized to its fullest extent. Mr. Byers responded to Representative Verkamp's concerns, and said the linkages are limited, but are improving. He noted as Judge Portley said, technology is capable of doing what is needed, but the problem is more complicated than that. The families must be identified and a common number assigned which each agency will be able to recognize for each family. He noted they are complex families with step-parents and step-children, and sometimes must be charted to determine to whom the child belongs. Mr. Byers said that technology is capable of letting the data be exchanged between agencies but the information must be institutionalized. No one is responsible for the information. He noted the Legislature passes laws wanting things done, but the budget process has not kept up with the plans. He noted that last year there was $.5 million available to improve JOLT, which was "swept aside" and returned to the general fund. Mr. Byers commented it is very discouraging to have a good plan which is not put into effect, and the policy makers must get together, including the budget planners, so that the allotted budget will be known before plans are developed. Senator Solomon stated she agrees with Mr. Byers. She said another problem is with data entry and personnel to do data entry. She noted she is on two subcommittees where this serious problem has arisen, and it has a great deal to do with the time constraints of which Judge Portley spoke, as well as the Attorney General's office, and DES. She addressed John Kelly, and asked if she was right in believing that the Governor may have an outside funding source, other than the general fund, which can be used for a "No Wrong Door." She stated the Governor is committed to making this program work with funding available to the executive branch, and she feels there is an opportunity this time to get these programs underway.

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 9

Mr. Kelly said he is not completely briefed on that, but there has been speculation about some options. He noted that every state is testing the federal government about what is possible. Senator Smith stated there is no question there will be a few problems along the way, but the whole task should be approached with a "can do" attitude and go step by step. Things which can be accomplished will be, and communication between all the agencies is paramount. He continued that communication will be required with the Governor's office as well, as all agencies are working for the common goal of the youth of Arizona. Representative Verkamp asked what the relationship is between the Governor's Commission on Juvenile Justice and this Committee. He said it would not be beneficial to approach the same problem in two different ways. Mr. Pickering stated the Governor has embraced a juvenile justice plan which is in its final stages, and incorporates, in the areas her office serves, the recommendations in four areas including: outcome, family, collaboration and data. He noted that as there are other members of that commission here, there will be collaboration between the two. Mr. Pickering said it is a professional stakeholder group, which has the broad interests of the State at heart and the mechanism should be able to diminish pessimism and accomplish the goals. He said it takes brains, rather than guts, and the smart thing to do would be to "pencil it out" first and put the money up front. Senator Smith said he has the guts and he hopes the Committee has the brains. Marilee DalPra, Governor's Office of Children, stated the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission has the money to do some of the recommendations. The funds have been designated from Juvenile Accountability Block Grant passed by Congress in 1997. There is $600,000 available to be put toward information sharing among juvenile justice agencies. Ms. DalPra said meetings have been held to determine GITA's involvement. The Commission focused on Deloitte's findings to apply the money to address some of the issues. Senator Smith said one of this Committee's subcommittees should be finance, which will find out what funds are available from the federal government and other sources. Mr. Byers said that coordinates with a Governor's Prevention Resource group which has an inventory of the agencies and the dollar amounts allotted, and there is an inventory of every prevention group in the State. He does not believe anyone uses it. Mr. Byers suggested acquiring that information from the Prevention Resource group so as not to duplicate the efforts of the staff, which is based at ASU and the Arizona Resource Center. Mr. Byers stated that in two weeks Congress is going to take up the Juvenile Justice bill, and this Committee should talk to the congressional delegation. There is $3.5 million,
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 10

which primarily is going to the counties, and another $4.2 million available which may be obtained. The way the federal bill is written, Arizona may be one of the few states qualifying for this money. Senator Smith stated he will talk to Congressman Kolbe. ASSIGNMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES The following subcommittees were determined and members appointed: Technology David Byers, Chair Representative John Verkamp Representative Roberta Voss Gene Fisher Linda Meisner, GITA, ex officio Mr. Byers noted that there were several people working on technology at the adult correction level and perhaps some of them could be recruited for this subcommittee. Family Involvement and Education Judge Portley, Chair Senator Ruth Solomon Laura Penny Anna Arnold Ron Smith Prevention and Intervention Marilee DalPra, Chair Representative John Loredo Myrtle Young Tim Dunst Judge Monica Stauffer Peter Hochuli Patricia Orozco = Outcome-based Programs Don Shaw, Chair Senator Tom Smith David Gaspar Tim Dunst Frank Owen, ex officio Finance Dennis Pickering Senator Marc Spitzer Sue Hall Dennis Burke
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page 11

Frank Carmen, ex officio Senator Smith said it is the subcommittee chairman's responsibility to get the members together. He reminded them that the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee must report by November 15, 1999. Senator Smith felt he would like to have a meeting in approximately one month. Several dates were discussed, and Senator Solomon suggested the time be moved to 10:OO a.m. to enable the outlying members to arrive readily. Thursday, September 30 at 10:OO a.m. was established for the next meeting. Senator Smith again reminded the Committee it is to implement the recommendations of Deloitte, and if there are problems with the recommendations, they will be studied further. He noted the Committee will continue for a "couple of years" and said whatever it does should be done properly. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted,

Karen Neuberg Committee Secretary

u -

(Tapes and attachments on file in the Secretary of the Senate's Office.)

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee August 24,1999 Page I 2

System Overview

Deloltte Consulting

w rn

System Overview

Deloitte Consultin@

System Overview
(Plus $27 Mil. County Investment)

AOC Average Costs

Deloitte Consulting

9

Intervention

Deioitte Consultins

ID

Secure Care

I

9

Deloitte Consultins

'26

Overall

Deloitte Consulting

33

Collaboration

Deloitte Consultina

38

Joint Technology Support

Deloitte Consulting

'40

Appendix B

Minutes of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee meeting held September 30,1999 (As approved by the committee on November 4,1999)

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE Minutes of the Meeting Thursday, September 30, 1999 10:OO a.m. Senate Hearing Room #1
Members Present: Dennis Pickering . Senator Tom Smith, Chair Senator Ruth Solomon David Byers Senator Marc Spitzer David Gaspar Representative John Verkamp Sue Hall The Honorable Monica Stauffer Representative Roberta Voss Myrtle Young Representative John Loredo Tim Dunst Marilee DelPra Laura Penny Donald Shaw Dennis Burke Patricia Orozco Peter Hochuli John Kaites Gene Fisher Ronald Smith Frank Carmen Robert Rice Craig Stinson (representing Barbara LaWall) Anna Arnold (representing John Clayton) Members Absent: The Honorable Maurice Portley Barbara LaWall
-

John Clayton

Staff: Rick Pyper, Senate Research Analyst Glenn Davis, Senate Minority Staff Senator Smith called the meeting to order at 10:OO a.m. and attendance was noted. See sign-in sheet for additimal attendees (Attachment A). Senator Smith noted that Clint Stinson is replacing Barbara LaWall today. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Senator Smith stated if there were no additions or corrections, the minutes of the August 24, 1999, meeting would be approved as written. The minutes were approved. Reports from the Subcommittees Senator Smith remtnded the Committee of its purpose. He asked Mr. Pyper to review the subcommittees which had been formed at the previous meeting. They are: Technology, chaired by David Byers; Family Involvement and Education, chaired by Judge Portley; Preventton and Intervention, chaired by Marilee DelPra; Outcome-based Programs, chaired by Donald Shaw; and Finance, chaired by Dennis Pickering. Senator Smith noted he had
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 p.w 1

received a copy of Judge Portley's minutes and would have copies distributed to the other members of the Committee. He also noted the Technology Subcommittee minutes were previously distributed to the members. Senator Smith questioned the report date of the Committee. Mr. Pyper reminded the Committee they are obligated to report by November 15, 1999, and every November 15, thereafter, until the end of 2001. Senator Smith said the subcommittee reports will be presented today, and then the full Committee will meet once more near the end of October to develop the report for November 15. He said he would like a quality report and was not necessarily interested in meeting every part of the charge at this time. He said he feels the Committee can work in increments. He mentioned there are other Committees working on similar aspects, and he thinks the committees should be able to coordinate their efforts through improved communication and technology. Technology Subcommittee Mr. Byers reported the Technology Subcommittee met successfully and if they had continued for another hour, they might have accomplished everything they were meant to do and adjourned. He noted a recent change in attitude of state government has created an environment whereby departments can work together and share information. A challenge from the Deloitte investigation was to allow agencies to obtain information from each other's computer programs and track children across various systems. Mr. Byers distributed the subcommittee minutes (Attachment B) and a second document (Attachment C) responding to Representative Verkamp on exchanging data. He said the biggest challenge is what you do once you connect to another agency's computer. Data format must be consistent. The Government information Technology Agency (GITA) has mapped what needs to be moved from one agency to the other, and has found there are relatively few items that must be shared. He added the primary job is to find out what other agencies need. Mr. Byers noted that Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) has three versions which are all linked to each other. He stated funding drives the design of the system. He noted the system was built with Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) money, for criminal systems, so JOtTS tracks children from the criminal systems but not from the dependency side. Mr. Byers reported that the Arizona Juvenile Corrections Department (ADJC) has established its system and established a link between ADJC and Maricopa JOLTS systems, and the link to the rest of the State will be tested by the end of the calendar year. The link allows an entire file to be sent to ADJC and supplies release information on juveniles. Mr. Byers noted that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is trying to establish the ability for law enforcement offices to link into JOLTS. The equipment has been purchased and the design and testing have been done on the corrections side. DPS is fixing its Y2K problems before finishing the link. Mr. Byers noted that the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) base, which provides nationwide information on criminals, their fingerprints and DNA, is going to be replaced, and he said he thinks that the local law enforcement agencies will be requesting funds to update their systems.

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 Page 2

Mr. Byers noted the system for the Children's Information Library and Data System (CHILDS) is being re-engineered relating to the way the system works on children's dependency cases. JOLTS did not support the dependency cases, but is now completely programmed with a dependency system for JOLTS, and it is operational and in place. Mr. Byers said the fifteen Superior Court clerks are now able to create an order on the Department of Economic Security (DES) central clearing house system, called ATLAS. In the past the orders were prepared in the court, shipped to DES, and then entered into their system. Mr. Byers noted that as soon as the system was running, DES was able to process 100,000 support checks a month with only a 2% error rate. He commended Sue Hall for the clerks' work on getting the details worked out with DES. Mr. Byers noted that this points out another potential problem with integrating information. He said the integration should not be developed unless there is a willingness to do two things: 1) if one part of the integrated unit decides to change software, there must be the discipline to work with everyone else to make sure the change is compatible, or the other systems are upgraded simultaneously; and 2) funding is normally appropriated by agency. He noted there is currently no way to fund integrated systems even among agencies, and they often are funded by city and county money as well. If changes are made by individual agencies, there is no one to coordinate the integration, the change control, the middleware computers and so forth. Mr. Byers noted that the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and the Legislature should figure out a way to fund the integration as more and more links are established. Mr. Byers noted that politics can sometimes play a part as well. He feels a dedicated funding source would be the best means of funding. Mr. Byers noted a program within DES which he believed is titled "Project Redesign," involving the large systems within DES. He stated it is extremely difficult for divisions of DES to exchange information within the Department, and that the entire DES system is being redesigned and it will be easier to get data from DES to the rest of the State. He stated DES systems are largely designed with the federal funding for each particular program. Mr. Byers said there are often restrictions as to how the money can be spent, and the agencies end up with "silos of information." He stated it would be useful for the Legislature to provide funding for the links, because this redesigning could be a great improvement. Mr. Byers noted that the "No Wrong Door" program has completed the first phase, and is ready to enter the second phase. He explained the program is a process whereby, as the systems are designed, it will serve the agency's needs and determine who else should be connected to the system. He again stated there is a relatively small amount of data to move from one agency to another. He said the Technology Subcommittee identified seven items for future opportunities to on share data, l~sted page 2 (Attachment B). One opportunity is for Juvenile Corrections to have DES ~nformat~on the status of the parent before releasing a child to parental on custody. Secondly, the DES can qualify for certain federal programs, if the Department can prove that 600 of the children it helps are U.S. citizens. It seems that many of them are cit~zens do not have proper documentation. This is an area where the court records but to could be prov~ded DES. Mr. Byers said there is another potential area of savings by getting children enrolled in the Title XIX program. Mr. Byers said the Attorney General, as
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 Page 3

part of the model court program, would like to electronically file the facts it uses to establish a child abuse case. Senator Smith thanked Mr. Byers for his report and for the progress the subcommittee has made. He expressed his pleasure in the improvement of the JOLTS system, which was recommended in the Deloitte report. In the area of coordination, he noted GlTA is doing an excellent job. It will review the purchase of the technology for the agencies. Mr. Byers commented that is a first step, but once those are approved and in place, there is no budget or agency to coordinate the middleware data to link the agencies. Staff will be needed to operate the change of the data, and GlTA is not an operational agency and does not run systems. Mr. Byers commented they do have a new innovative fund which may be expanded to take care of the data change systems. Senator Smith clarified each agency's system is operating independently, and there is no one to coordinate the various agencies. Mr. Byers said it is happening in a few areas, but if a member of the staff leaves, some of the process may be lost. Senator Solomon thanked Mr. Byers for an excellent report. However, she stated it is time to change policy and practice with regard to money and information. She said her issue is with the barriers to making things happen, and she does not understand why the discussions have not resulted in removing those barriers. Senator Solomon said it does not seem to be as difficult as it is purported to be. She said if it is decided it should be done, then it should be done. Mr. Byers said historically, the funding is categorical and that is a barrier. He has seen some movement, even on the federal level, to loosen some funding, but it is a challenge. He explained, as an example, that the U.S. Department of Justice has multiple bureaus which require different data to be reported to them in their own unique way. He said Justice cannot agree on what it wants. The challenge is to bring them together. Technologically, certain systems can be "pulled," translated and reported in another form. He said that funding is starting to be appropriated, but there is still a long way to go. Senator Solomon stated her confidence is the "No Wrong Door" program. She took issue with the word "savings" and said if the State is able to receive federal funds, just supplanting that money is not improving the services. She-said in order to undertake the programs there should be no cost avoidance.
Mr. Byers agreed, but said if the federal money takes over some of the state-funded areas, it will give the State the opportunity to begin more programs if the money is not supplanted. He said it is an opportunity for the Legislature to redistribute the money. He added whether it is State or federal money, it still comes from the same taxpayers.

Senator Smith noted there has been a great improvement in cooperation between agencies. He said attitude will enable the continuation of progress. Family lnvolvement and Education Subcommittee Since Judge Portley was not present, Anna Arnold reported that the Subcommittee had met once. She said the subcommittee studied the law relating to how families are supposed to participate in the juvenile justice system. Based on that discussion, no major changes in
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 Page 4

the law were found to be necessary. The changes should fall more in the practice of the law. She noted that parents can be tested if they are suspected of drug abuse, and there are other applications of that type. Ms. Arnold stated that the discussion focused on the difficulty in making a parent participate in services even though court ordered to do so. Parents can be held civilly responsible for the activities of their children but there are difficulties in holding them criminally responsible. It was noted that counseling services may not be used due to lack of transportation, dysfunction in the home and other family problems. Providing a means of transportation for the parent to the court was discussed. The Subcommittee also studied suggestions from a behavioral health subcommittee in relation to parents' involvement and education on the consequences of the juvenile probation system. A possibility is to ask community action advisory boards to work with the courts and probation, and explore successful programs in the family and juvenile process. There should be representation of parents on those boards and the boards could plan activities which would involve the parents more. Senator Smith commented the Deloitte findings discussed the absence of family information which would have helped in dealing with the juveniles and asked if that was discussed. Ms. Arnold said not specifically, but the Subcommittee did discuss the whole aspect of probation being family centered, and a good assessment of the family is vital. She suggested the Subcommittee could pursue the family information problem further. Senator Solomon commented Anna Arnold is the Acting Director of Administration for Children, Youth and Families and congratulated her. She noted an ad hoc subcommittee on childrens' mental health discussed the problem of probation officers (POs) not being trained to deal with youth in the mental health area. She said she hopes the Family Involvement & Education Subcommittee will discuss that and emphasized that a lot depends on how the youth are handled when paroled. Senator Solomon also noted that sufficient information is not available on the families, but that a new assessment process is being put into place. She added that four work groups are studying it and will report back to the subcommittee on childrens' mental health. She said she hopes that as a result of that work, the information requested in the Deloitte report will be made available. She felt Judge Portley should be advised that type of information needs to be shared between subcommittees. Ms. Arnold agreed.
--

Former Senator Kaites said he thinks it is gratifying to see the provisions of the Deloitte report being put into place. He noted that in 1994, the Legislature had given the courts contempt powers in those cases in which parents refused to participate in the youth's rehabilitation. He asked if those powers are being utilized. There was general agreement among the court members of the Committee that those powers are being used. Senator Kaites asked what the impact has been. Mr. Gaspar replied that the judges are able to use it to direct parents to undergo counseling and is used in truancy programs extensively. He said he knows that the courts immediately began to incorporate those powers to have parents be more involved. Mr. Kaites asked if the tool is working. He said he sensed it has been underutilized, and wondered if it has impact on the rehabilitation of the child. Mr. Gaspar replied that based on the Deloitte report, and the fact that an outside group had studied the issue, perhaps it should be used more. He noted that some of the issues raised in the Deloitte report dealt with diversion. Mr. Gaspar said more cases are handled in juvenile court through diversion
Juvenlle Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 Page 5

than are sent to judges. He said he believes Pima County, and many other courts throughout the State, focus on the family but perhaps the family should be involved in the earlier stages. Mr. Kaites said he assumed that the courts would be pursuing the contempt on 'their own motion." Patricia Orozco, Yuma County Attorney, said Judge Stone, of Yuma, used the contempt power, although the county attorney was not involved, and was ordering people into court, ordering different types of treatment, either counseling or submitting to drug testing. She noted the parents were following through. Ms. Orozco said she feels the new judge will also use the powers. Mr. Byers said ADJC is seeing it used a lot in juvenile drug courts. He noted these are pilot courts where the youth has been before the judge, and the judge has stopped the proceedings and told the parents to go take a drug test right then. He said the monitoring has become very effective at the juvenile level. Mr. Byers pointed out that out of 90,000 cases, only 10% go to court. He stated most youth are in a diversion program and very few would get into a contempt situation. Mr. Gaspar stated that if a family is in diversion and the parents are not cooperating, the county attorney could ask for the formal process, at which time the case would go to a judge. Mr. Kaites asked about juveniles who are sent to adult court, and placed on probation. He indicated a problem he found when talking to POs is they are not adequately aware they can utilize the juvenile services system in the adult court for probationary youth. He asked the status of the utilization of the services and if they are available to POs who supervise youth. Mr. Byers answered that when the law changed after Proposition 102, it was a shock to the adult probation system to include juveniles. During the first years, the services were not used. He said it is happening now, and the money set aside for it has been used. Mr. Byers said the program is not working because nearly 80% of those transferred and put on probation become return offenders. The rate of return for people who are 18 or over is less than that. Mr. Byers s a d it must be determined-what is necessary to make this program work. He noted the teenagers on this program are the worst of the worst and are in serious trouble, but are considered "freshmen" by the adults on probation. Mr. Byers said there is a "glitch" in the law about when a juvenile is found guilty, they are immediately removed from the juvenile system, but may have to wait up to 90 days before sentencing. Mr. Stinson, attending for Ms. LaWall, asked if the youth is immediately taken out of ADJC supervision once he goes to the adult court system and is placed on parole when he is found guilty. He noted there is a lapse with sentencing in the adult system, and there may be a period of time when he is without supervision. However, he said he believes the youth is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court until judgement in the adult system. Mr. Kaites clarified that will not require a legislative change. Senator Smith answered that he thought a transferred juvenile is treated in the adult court system and they have the same rights and privileges as the adults.
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 Page 6

Tape 1, Side B Mr. Kaites stated that the initial legislative reaction was to put in a provision that allowed juvenile services to be used in the adult system, as it did not want the youth in the adult system without supervision and just receive an automatic prison term. He stated there may not be adequate funding for the services, but he does not want to see the PO without the frame of reference of services available. Senator Smith stated this is a separate issue and will be followed up as such. He explained to the Committee that Mr. Kaites was formerly Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the time when Deloitte did its investigation and has maintained an interest. Frank Carmen stated he understands that in addition to the contempt powers, part of the challenge is to effect positive changes to involve parents in the system. He noted there is a percentage of parents who will disregard court orders and receive contempt orders because of it. Mr. Carmen said one problem is funding, because there may only be enough to treat the youth and not the family. He noted other family problems arise such as transportation, or treating the youth after school when the parents are still at work and cannot come. He said the subcommittee was trying to see where the court system could accommodate the families and get them to court. Mr. Carmen said one suggestion is to use youth who have gone through the treatment as mentors for another family because they can demonstrate how the system has worked. Prevention and lntervention Subcommittee Ms. DelPra distributed the minutes (Attachment D) from the Prevention and Intervention Subcommittee and a recommendation matrix (Attachment E). Ms. DelPra stated there were many recommendations throughout the Deloitte report and in order to better organize them, her Subcommittee looked at the full set of recommendations and compiled the matrix. Ms. DelPra said the matrix identifies recommendations and the stakeholders who would be impacted by each recommendation. She noted there is sufficient cross-over of some of the recommendations that would involve other subcommittees. Ms. DelPra asked that each subcommittee study the areas identified for them on the matrix and let the Prevention Subcommittee know if it agrees or if that subcommittee is willing to work in addressing that problem. Ms. DelPra expressed the thought that a long time has passed between when the findings of the Deloitte report were established and today. She felt it important to go to the state agencies and ask if they agree with the findings or if anything has changed. She suggested asking if they have implemented any changes recommended in the report, what the process of evaluation is, and if work groups are available. She said her Subcommittee has drafted a list that it will be sending out to state agencies listed as stakeholders, and based on their response, will determine how to proceed. Senator Smith stated he is impressed with the amount of work the people on this Committee are doing and he believes there will be worthwhile recommendations made.

Juvenlle Justice Coordinating Commntee September 30,1999 Page 7

Outcome-based Programs Subcommittee Mr. Shaw stated his Subcommittee did not have written minutes, but they would be forthcoming and sent to the members. He stated the approach of the Subcommittee has been to define outcome as "bringing young people involved with the system to a point they are no longer violating the law." Underlying that were several benchmarks or process measurements of the steps which will bring the youth to that point. Mr. Shaw said they are identifying areas for measurement and have developed five areas: 1) prevention; 2) early intervention and diversion; 3) probation; 4)secure care, i.e. detention; and 5) aftercare, i.e. parole or probation. He noted there is progress being made including the implementation of the revised risk needs instrument used in juvenile courts. Mr. Shaw said the State would use the new risk measurements which are validated as to the causes for delinquency, including attending school or involvement with an educational program, if they are drug-free and alcohol-free; and family relationships. A lack of these are indicators of further criminal activity. Mr. Shaw noted that Mr. Gaspar and ADJC are involved in a program of outcome measures within secure institutions and that information will help in those areas. Mr. Shaw said the minutes as well as the recommendations will be distributed at the next meeting. Senator Smith said the Committee has been discussing measurable outcomes but the information he has received did not speak to measurable outcomes. He used the example of weight loss as a program, but it is not an outcome measurement without a baseline with which to start and upon which to calculate loss. He said if there are 100 people in an early intervention program and a year or two later 60 of them are clear without a brush with the law, that is an outcome measurement. Senator Smith said he feels strongly that there must be something to measure against. He noted he and Mr. Gaspar had met and were trying to develop outcome measurements. Senator Smith will try to develop measurements for prevention and early intervention, and said he should have them completed by the end of the week, after which he will mail a copy to each member of the Committee for comments. He suggested the Committee make comments on each of the subcommittee reports and send them back to that subcommittees for further evaluation, and in the long run a program will be developed whichwill make effective useaf the programs and help the youth of the State. Finance Subcommittee Mr. Pickering handed out a summary of the Finance Subcommittee meeting (Attachment F). He noted the meeting was well represented by members of this Committee as well as persons representing existing resources in the community. He referred to Mr. Byers' comment at the last meeting about the Arizona Prevention Resource Center's (APRC) work on program inventory, and said that shows progress. The system was defined to identify information throughout the State for drug and gang programs. Mr. Pickering said the expansion of the mandate for that might become a tool to policy makers. He noted the Subcommittee tried to identify tools which would enable it to make better decisions, noting there are unintended fallout from change and what works and does not work needs to be determined.
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30,1999 Page 8

Mr. Pickering said there should be a source designation document which will describe what funds come in and where they are placed. He said that will help determine what is working from a finance standpoint. JLBC will help identify source information on federal, local and state money and where it goes. If performance-based outcomes are to be used, it should be determined what the effects are when resources are moved. He said care needs to be given to the system when it begins to change, or the capital investments can be lost. Mr. Pickering said the source information document will help the Committee understand how the migration of a system towards performance gets to the outcomes, and does not leave come crucial portion, although not a performance indicator, out of the program. Mr. Pickering said the Subcommittee attempted to find out resources for inventorying programs. He noted the APRC has been conducting program inventory for ten years. He said if the information is audited and a program found to be a useful tool, the Center could help determine if that program can be expanded. Mr. Pickering stated he shares the optimism expressed today in working together and using the initiatives available. He noted that not all efforts will succeed, and there are many different initiatives, and he hopes this Committee will weed out the ineffective ones and produce a sense of direction and longterm policy based on meaningful data. Senator Smith agreed and stated that very often a program is changed each year without giving it a chance to develop or be implemented and said the Legislature may be responsible for that. The programs are changed so often the results are never known. He noted the courts should be given an opportunity to implement the programs. Mr. Byers noted that he serves on the Information Technology Advisory Council (ITAC) Board, which studies computer projects, and has noticed what Senator Smith just said that the Legislature is setting public policy in broad areas, i.e.. welfare reform, but has not funded the new policies Mr. Byers noted if new policy is made, there must be a way to fund it as well. Senator Solomon stated it is not only the technology, it is the program as well. Mr. Byers said it is confusing when group after group has said that it does not have the programming. Senator Solomon said she is extremely proud of the model courts program and the work the Legislature did, as well as the statewide implementation. She noted that DES still has not been provided sufficient funding to hire enough employees to carry out the responsibilities. Senator Solomon said the workloads of many have increased by 50%, and there is tremendous turnover in case workers. Without the resources for Child Protective Services (CPS) and DES, the Legislature is only doing half a job. Linda Misner, GITA, said she is a member of Mr. Byers' Subcommittee and would like to address a comment by Senator Solomon in order to alleviate some of her concerns. Ms. Mlsner stated that one of the things GITA is trying to do is identify the barriers to integrating lnformatlon and systems, and as part of that, she is the cochair of a digital government work~nggroup. Her cochair is the central information officer of the Secretary of the State, and the group is attended by DOA, the Arizona Telecommunications System, the Governor's Off~ce, DES and many others. This group will identify the inhibitors to making lnformat~on more accessible to the people and also across agencies.

Juvenile Justice Cwrdlnating Commltbe September 30,1999 Page 9

Senator Smith asked the subcommittee chairs to use the Senate's agenda format when sending out their agendas, with the disclaimer across the bottom. He reminded them to issue notice if the meeting is cancelled. Senator Smith reminded them the committee must report by November 15. The next meeting will be November 4'h at 10:OO a.m. in Senate Hearing Room 1. He said he hopes to come up with final information which will be used for the report on November 15. He sincerely thanked the Committee for attending the meetings and the work they are doing. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. Respecffully submitted,

(Tapes and attachments on file in the Secretary of the Senate's Office.)

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee September 30.1999 Page 10

Hearing Room No. Date: Time:

-

MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON

JuvenileJ d t i Coordinating Committee ~ T ~ o l o g Subcommi#ct y September 22, I999

Repnsentative Vcrkamp Gene Fisher, La Paz County BOS Tom Groruki, ADJC Linda Meisner, GITA John Barre Resesrch Planning/IT Director Maricopa County Juvenile Court Neil Young, DES

of the Courts Dave Byers, Supreme Court, Administrative Bobbie Chinsky, Administrative O f c ofthe Courts fie Mike Much4 Adminiiative oflice of the Caurts
The mission of this subcommittee is to help implement the technology related to recommendations in the Deloitte Report. Significant progress has been made since the report was issued
Juvenile Justice Svstem

ADJC and the JOLTS System have designed an electronic link to exchange data. - This link is now active between Maricopa County and ADJC. - Pima and the mral counties will be added to the link by year end.
This link provides the ability for juvenile c m to pass reports and data to ADJC and allows a ADJC to provide release data to the juvenile courrs.

The Administrative Off~ce the Courts (AOC) has also purchased the needed equipment and of designed the systems needed to link JOLTS statewide to the ACnS criminal justice system. This link to be compieted by December 1999, will provide data to all law enforcement agencies

-

-

including police, sheriff and prosecution. This strategic link may also allow ADJC to provide release data to law enforcement.

JOLTS bow includes tbe juvenile court automated RiskNccds Assessment. This initial assessment can be used to identify children needing additional behavioral health assistance. The Needs tool is currently under revision to enhance this type of assessment.
Behavioral health bas duigned a behavioral health assessment process. The possibility exists t o

use a ureb-based, virtual assessment center, allowing assessments to be done starewide.

As part of the re-engineered model COW program, JOLTS has been expanded to capture data on

dependent childrea. This new module has been implemented statewide. L& to the DES i CHIL.D system are now possible. If'successlily designed and implemented, DES will provide DES placement data to the courts and the courts will provide cwrtaction data to DES.
When mmpleted, dependency data can be used in R i s k O h h a s s m n s and for ADJC needs seset

There are several opponunities on the horizon:
1.

2.
3.
4.

5. 6.

7

Provide CPS data to juvenile detention caters. Collect CPS reports and transmit to FCRB and court electronically. Capture U. citizenship data via FCRB and cowt actions to qualify approximately 600 S. children for fedad aid, instead of having the state pay the field wst. Capture and exchange nwdcrd infonnatiotl to allow children to be made Title 19 eligible, reducing state cost DES is in the process of project redesign w l a e to better exchange data within DES. efr I n f o d o n on school progress and psychological reports by DES and Probation. Provide Attorney General with ability to decftonically file depemdency cases.

Child SwwrtlClcrks
On December 1, 1998, clerks of wwt and DES linked the CHILD support systems. Now, instead of courts preparing papa orden and sen* them to DES and DES entering this data
into ATL.AS, the clerks now enter directly into ATLAS. A1 payments are now sent to one 1 centralized location, speeding up the process

Future Strategic Direction
The "No Wrong Door" initiative has b e n established to see that dl future development takes into account lrnkages between agencies.Phase One of the "No Wrong Dooi' initiative has been completed (see attachment). Phase Two,to detail specific requirements has been authorized. Long tenn, "No Wrong Door" will lead to hrther integration of systems wt an emphasis on; ih Intake Screening Referral

"No Wrong Doof' plans to complete a saies o f short-term projects over the next 14 months.

PROBLEMS ON THE HORIZON

-

Integration including data warehouse technology can be expensive to build and to

-

maintain. Coordinated funding must be provided by the legislature to maintain systems once linked, othmdse, we will be WOW off. An ongoing dedicated fund may need to be cstsblished. Serious potential data netwok p b l e m s exist due to the pending purchases of U. . West S by Quest and sale of U.S. West's rural assets t Citizens Utility. Citizens is not cuncntly o even able to handle 911 calls. Because of the "limbo"situation, no investment i being s made in nrraI h n a and data lints arc not avaiiable. Thii threatens d state agencies' l
networking.

-

D.\OFFICE\WPWTbWYERS~NSTICE TECH MNTS wpQ

A2 No Wrong Door Initiative Progran~ Furaction Matrix to
I

r

i

r

1

,
1

-

-

.

.

.

,

.

.

I

.

;,

,,k r s

,
-

Famlbr (9LI) ~ a n c Ccodlnal)ng Councl)for hlsnls and y

DES

5 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 1 5 5 1 4 1 1 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 3 5 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 3 3 3

5 5

9

5

5

---.

3

3

3

3

3

3

6 5

1

5 5 5 5 5

5

1

3 5 5 5 4

5 5 5 5 4

5 5 5 5 4

5 5 5 1 4

5 5 5 5 5

' 5. 5" 5, 5
5555 5555 5555
-,

WS
DES
DfS DES
OES

,I

!TnWng PddpahnAct (JTPA) jkdh d x n c l l (DES DekmJne Elig)

OppaLnlla Basic SkYls (JOBS)

s555445545 53555555'3' 535555555 5555 5 5 5 5 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 4

5

5 5

5 1

5 4

5 3

3 5

3 '

4 -5 -. 15 15 53 5

'
I

gem RoseMlement Program (RRP) p m y Assisbnm b Usady Fadlsr ( T A W ) I kss4~lamm

s

5

5

5

5

5

acJ#la Conhd (SLI)

DES DES

5

5

5

5

51555511333

1

5S5S515S5S
I

5\55565555

1

-

0
3
II

1)
I

rl
4

1)

: bnce Abuse Services ,
13
C m Tar

? ~ ~ ~ r a r w ~ ~ S s l a r s U . n ~ a l0%n e s s s 5 ~
DHS

5
5
1

3
3

5

5'3 5
5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

5 5
-

4

5

5 5
5

3 3
3

3
3

3
3
1

3 3
5

3

5

5

5

5

5

5

s

5

5

s

5

Pllmafy Care Program

DHS

e, Wan& swd ChiMren (WIC) n

DHS

5 3 5

5
5

5

5

5-.5

35555 5 577515

544 2 --5

4

5
5

5- 5 5

3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -. 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 - L3 3 -3 k 3 5 3 3 3 -3 .

-

55

5

s 515

5

515

5

555155

Why Is It So Hard to Exchange Data?
"Let's.-connect these svstems so we can eet the data we need." In order to connect a computer system, there must first be a data network that allows for electronic data to be exchanged. There is no broadband government network in Arizona. In Arizona, many agencies use the U.S. West frame relay n m o r k . U.S. West is being purchased by Quest and is selling their rural infrastructure to Citizens Utility. Currently, it is almost impossible to get additional data services to rural Arizona. Without a good high speed data network, data can not be exchanged between systems. "Let's talk" Connecting via a network is only the first step. Once you connect, you must be able to communicate. Sounds easy, however, try piclung up the phone and calling China. Once connected, you still cannot communicate unless they speak English or you speak Mandarin! Current computer systems speak different languages. Many of the State's large systems operate based. Connecting multiple in a mainframe and terminal environment, while others are P.C. systems does not automatically mean they can translate from one language to another. A translator - middleware or data warehouse or other types of technology is needed to translate from one to another. "Can we work together?" Once connected and communicating, it is still a challense to actually utilize applications in another agency. You can imagine how hard it would be for someone in China to communicate to the U S., use a translator and then use a U.S. tax preparation sofnvare application to do their taxes Using the application would still be foreign to them. Trying to get state workers in, say D.E.S. , to use JOLTS is very complex - even after you solve the connection and communication problems. A better approach, maybe, is to extract onlv key data needed by another agency, or to use Internet browser type software to be able to look up but not change data or operate applications.

There is not an easy way to identify individuals or families in various systems. A "Tom Smith", who is a D E.S client, may be a different "Tom Smith" in D.O.C. D.E.S. may open a case based on a family name, but the juvenile courts use the names of children, which may be different than that of their parents. Many of the families state government deals with are composed of individuals having been married more than once, or with children conceived from different fathers Trying to link these individuals, in order to pull data together, is a challenge.

"No one is in c h a r ~ e inteeration." of

Integrating systems and maintaining that integration via a change manasement approach is complfcated and takes skilled, dedicated staff, separate from daily operations. Individual agencies are not now set up to do this. For example, the superior courts are linked to the D.E.S. Child Support system, (AFIS). Courts actually open the cases in AFIS as they occur in court. This has greatly speeded up case processing. However, recently D.E.S. needed to upgrade their main frame system. When they did so, it "knocked" several courts off the system because the courts' software was not compatible with the AFIS upgrade. Now the courts need to do an unplanned upgrade of their system. Who pays the cost? Who d6es.the work? The State or the County? The legislature will need to establish and coordinate a system of funding so that one part of an integrated system does not get left behind when changes occur. Unfortunately, this is hrther complicated due to funding coming from state, federal, county, and city government.
"What is reallv needed?"

The Deloitte Report is rather vague in regard to who needs what data. There is a general sense that things would be better if data was more integrated. This might we11 be the case. However, at this point, we need to identify what specific data is needed and by whom, to do a more effectivejob. Simply linlung systems, for example CHILDS with JOLTS, may or may not accomplish any real improvement
"Can it be done?"

While all of these problems are real and need to be considered. there is the possibility of finding products which could make the overall system work better. We need to identifv the specific products which would lead to success. We might start to look at the Pennsvivania Integrated Justice Model or the New York Communitv Court as models of what can be done.

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee
Preventionfintervention Subcommittee
Meeting Date: September 16, 1999 Time:

-

Subcommittee Minutes

2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Minutes taken by: Marilee Dal Pra

Members Present:
Marilee Dal Pra, Chair Tim Dunst Peter Hochuli Tom Klemko Representative John Laredo Robert Rice Lynn Wiletsky

Members Absent:
Pat Orozco Honorable Monica Stauffer Myrtle Young

1
I

Topic: Meeting Schedule

I

j Summary of discussion:
Members agreed to establish a standard meeting schedule on the second and forth Wednesdays of each month fiom 10:OO a.m. to 12:OO p.m. Lynn Wiletsky and Tom Klernko will determine the availability of the video conferencing equipment at the Supreme CourtIAdministrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Health ServicesiBehavioral Health Services for upcoming meetings.
-

I

Decisions made:
The nest subcomm~ttee meeting 10:OO a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
IS

scheduled for Wednesday, October 13, 1999 fiom

Actions to be taken: Determine the location and availability of teleconferencing equipment.

Person(s) responsible: Lynn Wiletsky Tom Klemko

I

I

Topic: Subcommittee Membership
Summary of discussion: Representation from all the stakeholders identified in the Deloitte Final Report is needed on the subcommittee. Specifically, the members discussed the need to include representation from the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, the Arizona Department of Education and the county probation departments. Members will submit names of individuals they recommend for the subcommittee and the Chair will discuss the recommendations with the members of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee. Decisions made: Further representation on the PreventiodIntervention is being sought from the members I of the subcommittee. Actions to be taken: Person(s) responsible: All members

i 1

Submit names of individuals recommended to serve on the subcommittee.

Topic Subcommittee Goals

Summary of discussion:
I

A _generaldiscussion was held on the recommendation sections of the Final Report.

Many of the recommendations pertain to more than one of the subcommittees of the Ju\,enile Justice Coordinating Cornrn~ttee.Members proposed the Prevention1 Intenent~on Subcomm~ttee work w ~ t h other subcommittees to determine which the subcommittee would respond to the recommendation.

-

Decisions made. The subcomm~ttee revieu all recommendations that pertain to the areas ofprevention will that relate to other subcommittees will be discussed and Intenrentlon Recommendat~ons
further

Acr~ons be taken to
Drl elop a matnx of the Deloitte recommendat~ons. list~ng stakeholders the 2nd subcommittees impacted

Person(s) responsible: Marilee Dal Pra

Topic: Report Recommendations Summary of discussion: Members of the subcommittee discussed approaches to address the recommendations of the Final Report. It was suggested that the subcommittee send a letter to the state agencies affected by the recommendations, asking for their input. Members felt the response letter should include questions on whether the agency agreed with the findingslrecommendations, if any changes had been made in response to the . recommendations and whether there were existing groups that .were addressing these issues.
,

Decisions made: The subcommittee will solicit input from the state agencies impacted by the recommendations of the Deloitte Audit. Actions to be taken: Draft a letter requesting state agencies response to the Final Report. Person(s) responsible: Marilee Dal Pra Lynn Wiletsky

Topic: Best Practices Summary of discussion:

1 Members discussed the request made by the Chairman of the Juvenile Justice
Coordinating Committee that the PreventionlIntervention Subcommittee highlight the programs that have been proven to be effective. Several members expressed concern of regarding the lim~tations the scientific studies performed to date and the fact that many local preventiodintervention programs have not had the resources to conduct rigorous evaluation studies. Although the members agreed that best practice information is important and should be considered by the subcommittee, its limitations should be stressed as well

, Dec~sionsmade:
The subcommittee will review all recommendations that pertain to the areas of prevention that and Intenrentlon. Recornmendat~ons relate to other subcommittees will be discussed further .4ct1onsto be taken. Obta~n coples of the Promoting Effectwe Practices Manual from the Anzona Prevention Resource Center Person(s) responsible: Marilee Dal Pra
1

Juvenile Justice C o o r d i r ~ a t i n g Committee Preventionllntervention Subcommittee Recommendations Matrix September 1999

Seek conirnuriily involvernerit in identifying problem areas or gaps In juvenile crime prevention and eslablish a statewide coordinat~ng comniittee to coordinate Ihe prevention effort, develop comprehensive prevention programs, streamline the

in the development of new programs and assist existing programs in identifying and securing additional funding to expand their efforts. Develop positive, meaningful outcome measures to assess the value of prevention programs. Develop evaluation processes for all programs funded by the state in order to measure goals and program effectiveness.

Universal

Preventionllntervention

Section 5: lnterver~fion

Implement standardized, unlform measures for all

Utilize JOLTS system to track diversion cases and evaluate the effectiveness of diversion programs

diversion and prevention efforts. Expand the use of performance and outcome measures. Develop measures to assess the effectiveness of probation terms and conditions. Specific measures should include recidivism of youth discharged from standard and intensive probation and youth that turn 18 in order to measure the tong-term affects of probation supervision. Develop automated case management tool. Electronically collect data on the social and educational history of youth served. Develop and monitor meaningful performance measures. Establish reasonable performance outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the programs and treatment being offered. Providers need to track financial information to assess the cost effectiveness of Ihe dollars spent on treatment.

AOC, Juvenile Courts

Outcomes

AOC, Juvenile Courts

Technology Outcomes Outcomes

AOC, Treatment Service Providers

e (tiat are currerilly

to break down the barriers to effective services.

Providers and stale agencies should work together to ensure the best services are delivered to Arizona's children. Collaboralion elforls sliould include aring of informalion, and

Preventionllnlervention

discrepancies between reimbursement rates and rovider costs. AOCIJJSD should consider

hould continue to support and encourage expansion of effective service procurement models.

spent wisely on appropriale services. County Iheir Probation Deparlliienls sliould closely rnor~ilor budgels Itiroughoul llie year to ensure Illal funds allotted for trealrnerit of deliliquenl juveniles are spent on appropriate placenier~ls.

Section 6: Secure Care
P

,,,AOC,Juvenile Courts Develop and maintain improved detention performance and outcome measures. lmprove performance and outcome measures for more efficienl and cost-effective use of counly detention facilities. AOC, Juvenile Courts Develop and improve detention risk assessment tools. Develop more effective risk assessmenl 1001s to properly anticipate a juvenile's need for detention. Assessment tools should be tied into the JOLTS system or other automated support for detention facilities. AOC, Juvenile Courts Counties should enhance consistency of detention accounting procedures. A standard cost accounting approach should be developed for detention facilities. Universal Continue automation and implementation of performance measures for ADJC. ADJC's automation efforts should include the capability to readily exchange data with AOC, ADES, ADHSIBHS, RBHAs, and ADE. Universal Provide ongoing collaboration and communication between all stakeholders. Collaboration efforts must include a review of legislative and system changes that impact key stakeholders. ADJC, AOC, Juvenile Courts Improve case file documentation. ADJC should work with correction staff and probation and parole officers to ensure that comprehensive, accurate and meaningful information is documented in case files. Documentation should occur in a timely and organized fashion.

Outcomes Prevention/lntervention

Outcomes

Finance

Technology Outcomes

Preventionllntervention Technology

Technology Preventionllntervention Family Involvement and Education Outcomes Finance

grammlng gaps.

Continue to use family statistics to help shape treatment for youth and outreach for parents. ADJC treatment servlces need lo conllnue lo ~denl~fy and serve the farnlly issues trnpactlng del~nquent youth Continue to hire and train qualified staff and provide sufficient resources to each facility. Continue to support ADJC treatmerit efforts through quality staff and reductlon in caseload of psychological staff Increase efficiency and effectiveness of the risk, assessment and classification process. Strearnllne the RAC process to prov~de staff w ~ t h rnore t~me treat and rehabtl~tale to youth Complete an in-depth cost analysis of all ADJC facilities. Conduct cost analysis of facll~l~es deterrnlne if cost lo differences are warranted Reconsider the use of Boot Camp services. Continue evaluation of the boot camp program and apply performance and outcome measures to determine its cost-effecttveness.

ADJC, Famtl~es

Family Involvement and Education Preventionllntervention

ADJC
1'

Finance

ADJC

Outcomes

ADJC

Finance Outcomes

ADJC

Outcomes

Section 7: Post-Secure Care
Evaluate the ADJC Continuum of Care Model t o determine if resources are being utilized effectively. Continue to evaluate the new graduated continuum model and, if proven effective, evaluate the costeffectiveness of expanding the model to include rural, female and medium-and low-risk youth. ADJC Outcomes

JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
September 22,1999
Meeting summary:

Three suggestions/recomrnendations emerged out of our first two hour discission.
First, that a financial data summary of all Juvenile Justice funds by source and destination ! developed as an information tool to assist in decision making. x Second, that an emphasis on financial incentives for performance based outcomes is valued, and care is warranted prior to reallocation, reduction or addition of financial resources to minimize any undesired unintended consequences. 'Ihrd, that existing financial reporting initiatives are in place such as the Governors Action Initiative and the Arizona Prevention Resource Centers "Drug and Gang Prevention and Treatment Program Inventory" which could be utWdeveloped as an additional information tool for decision making. In Attendence:

al Sue Hl Wendy Gans Steve Capobres Mobin Qaheri Nadine Berrett Brad Regens Kevin Kluge Frank Carmen Dennis Pickering

Apache County Clerk of the Court Arizona Prevention Resource Center Arizona Department of Commerce 'Arizona Department of eommerce Senate Research Joint Legislative Budget Committee Administrative Office of the Courts Administrative Office of the Courts Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
INTERIM MEETING NOTICE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMllTEE
Date: Time: Place: Thursday, September 30,1999 10:OO a.m. Senate Hearing Room #1 AGENDA
1.

Call to Order Approval of Minutes Report from Subcommittees Other Business Schedule Next Meeting Adjourn
./

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

/-

Tom Smith, chairman/

t,z&4d9 /s
V

Members:
Senator Tom Smith * Senator Ruth Solomon Senator Marc Spitzer Representative John Verkamp Representative Roberta Voss Representative John Loredo Tim Dunst Laura Penny Dennis Burke Peter Hochuli Gene Fisher Ronald Smith Frank Carmen Robert Rice Dennis Pickering David Byers John Clayton David Gaspar Sue Hall The Honorable Maurice Portley The Honorable Monica Stauffer Myrtle Young Barbara LaWall Marilee DelPra Donald Shaw Patricia Orozco John Kaites

Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting the S e M b Secretary's Office: (602)5424231 (voice). Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE Minutes of the Meeting Thursday, November 4,1999 10:OO a.m. Senate Hearing Room 1 Members Present: Senator Tom Smith, Chair Senator Ruth Solomon Representative John Verkamp Gene Fisher Robert Rice David Gaspar The Honorable Maurice Portley Clint Stinson (For Barbara LaWall) Patricia Orozco Marilee DelPra Members Absent: Senator Marc Spitzer Representative Roberta Voss Representative John Loredo David Byers Staff: Rick Pyper, Senate Judiciary Analyst
Senator Smith called the meeting to order at 10:OO a.m., and attendance was noted. See sign-in sheet for additional attendees. (Attachment A) -

Tim Dunst Laura Penny Peter Hochuli Frank Carmen Anna Arnold (For John Clayton) Sue Hall Myrtle Young Donald Shaw John Kaites

Dennis Burke Ronald Smith Dennis Pickering The Honorable Monica Stauffer

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kaites made a motion to adopt the minutes of the September 30, 1999, meeting. The minutes were approved as written. Senator Smith stated the Committee report is due by November 15, 1999 and that after this meeting the Committee should have the information necessary for Mr. Pyper to write the report and submit it on time. He mentioned that much time and effort is going into this report, and it is important that the Committee takes these recommendations to implementation. Senator Smith said some of these recommendations may be implemented through legislation or through the Auditor General's Office (OAG). If given the Committee's recommendations, the auditor can ensure they are being implemented when a performance audit is conducted on an agency. Senator Smith suggested the
Juvenile Justice CoordinatingCommittee November 4,1999 Page 1

Committee could notify the agencies of the Deloitte recommendations and encourage the agencies to work on implementing the recommendations which apply to them. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE Sue Hall said she would report in Dennis Pickering's absence, and distributed the Finance Subcommittee report (Attachment B). She explained that the Finance Subcommittee met on October 13, 1999. She reported that often when money is appropriated for specific issues, no one wants to release that money until directed to do so. Ms. Hall indicated that the Finance Subcommittee feels there is one tool that exists within the Deloitte report that will give the decision-makers and legislators a means to show the effectiveness of the funding. The subcommittee recommends enlarging the Drug and Gang Enforcement Annual Program Survey that is sent to agencies to evaluate the funds received and how those funds are applied. Ms. Hall indicated the Subcommittee recommends a financial data summary be developed of all juvenile justice funds by source and destination to show the effectiveness of the distribution of money. Ms. Hall discussed existing financial reporting initiatives that should be considered in developing a financial data summary. These initiatives include the Governor's "No Wrong Door" program and the Arizona Prevention Resource Center's (APRC) Drug and Gang Prevention and Treatment Program inventory. She noted part of the Subcommittee's recommendation would be to enlarge this process. Currently, the inventory is distributed to 900 agencies and will be enlarged to 1,500. Ms. Hall indicated it will have a broad spectrum of information brought into a document source that will be available to the decision-makers to show the effectiveness of the funding. The Subcommittee also feels that emphasis should be placed on financial incentives for performance-based outcomes. She urged that care is warranted prior to the relocation, reduction, or addition of financial resources to minimize any undesirable effects. Ms. Hall said the Subcommittee realizes when recommending that money be reallocated, there is a need to be careful that effective programs are not adversely affected. Ms. Hall noted her surprise when someone mentioned that the D.A.R.E. program does not work, because in the small community she represents it does work, as evidenced by the children bringing home the information learned through the D.A.R.E. program and discussing it with others. She stated she understands what happens in a small community of 3,000 is different from a larger community. Ms. Hall stated the Finance Subcommittee further recommends the immediate establishment of an evaluation committee which would conduct an audit of current juvenile justice data. She suggested this could be part of the survey conducted by APRC. She indicated the Subcommittee would like to have interviews with the agency directors to collect the necessary information and identify questions to be answered by the data. The Subcommittee believes this would aid in designing the inventory
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee November 4,1999 Page 2

.
questionnaire to be more effective. There may be additional questions which could be included to pinpoint some of the resources or problems that need to be identified. Ms. DelPra commented that Mr. Pickering is looking at available resources within the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission that could fund the first phase of the project. Mr. Pickering has not fotwarded that request to the Commission, but is investigating how the Commission might actually implement all or part of that funding. Senator Smith asked when the financial data summary is developed of all juvenile justice funds, who would conduct the financial data summary and where would it end
UP.

Ms. Hall replied that the Subcommittee has visited with several people, such as Brad Regens from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), asking that the information gathered in the budget process be used to identify funds that are juvenile related. Mr. Regens indicated that Representative Knaperek's committee has completed data gathering on origination sources, and suggested capturing that data in one existing database to be made available to everyone. Senator Smith clarified the Finance Subcommittee is proceeding in development of the financial data summary for the juvenile justice fund, and will continue to solidify how it is to be accomplished. Ms. Hall indicated that the Subcommittee feels their work will be ongoing and plans to meet frequently to pull the origination dollars together. She stated that the Subcommittee thinks one of the stumbling blocks is determining which funds to review and is currently focused on juvenile justice funding. Senator Smith indicated that it is a difficult task because there are many different funds for many programs; however, the Committee must "get a handle" on it to achieve the desired results and to ensure that only effective programs are funded. Senator Smith noted he recently reviewed a national report that said the D.A.R.E. programs are not effective. He noted there may be certain parts of the program that are effective, and it may work in some communities. Those are the types of things that need to be identified, so that it is funded only where it is effective. Mr. Kaites referred to the comment that more outcome-based analysis needs to occur. He asked if the Subcommittee is aware of how many of the outside contractors in the juvenile justice system have performance-based contracts rather than task-based contracts. Frank Carmen stated some of the contracts are outcome-driven and some are service-oriented. Mr. Kaites asked how that is measured, what types of contracts are outcome-driven and why all the contracts are not outcome-driven. Mr. Carmen indicated that the Juvenile Justice Service Division (JJSD) is moving in that direction and it is their responsibility to determine which programs are not performing at the expected level and how to make them better, not put them out of business. He explained JJSD is begging for providers to supply certain types of services to certain types of youth. He noted programs like Desert Hills, Wendy Paine and Charter have all gone out of business. A point has been
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee November 4, 1999 Page 3

4

reached where the system is desperate for residential-types of programs for certain populations. A part of the outcome is to see whether they are performing successfully, providing the services, and meeting contract specifications; the next level is to follow up how many youth reoffend or reenter the system after they complete the programs. Mr. Kaites asked if programs have been successful in areas where they can be qualified and where there are enough contractors competing for the contracts to make them outcome-based. Mr. Carmen referred to the portion of the Deloitte report that addressed programs which provide specific types of services for certain youth populations. The report shows the success rates for high, medium and low-risk youth for individual counseling, family counseling, etc. Most of the success rates are in the 60% and