Report from the
Advisory Committee on Juvenile Detention Standards
and Administrative Rules

Prepared for the Juvenile Issues Subcommittee
by Susan Byorth Fox
June 1998

The Advisory Committee met on May 21, 1998, and the following were in attendance:
Alan Egge, Missoula County Sheriff; Lois Adams, DOC; Mark Royer, DOC; David Gates,Montana Juvenile Probation Officer's Association; Ray Barnicoat, Montana Association ofCounties (MACo); Dan Minton, Missoula County Sheriff's Office; Jacque Van Wormer, Missoulaand Mineral Counties Youth Court; Peggy Beltrone, Cascade County Commission; John W.Larson, Fourth Judicial District Court; Glen Welch, Missoula County Youth Court; MurrayPierce, Missoula County Youth Court; Mitzi Schwab, DPHHS; Levi Cronk, Western RegionalJuvenile Detention Center; Allen C. Horsfall, Jr., Montana Board of Crime Control; CatherineLove, OPI; Liz Harter, DPHHS-CFS; Brenda Elias, Montana Advocacy Program; Tom Ramirez,Yellowstone County Youth Court; Valerie Rausch, Yellowstone County Juvenile DetentionCenter; Senator Bea McCarthy, Chair; and Susan Fox, Valencia Lane, and Gordy Higgins, LSDstaff.

Summary:

Sentiments were expressed that previous task forces had worked long and hard on juveniledetention standards and rules and that work should not be abandoned. The Advisory Committeebegan with defining terms to ensure that common understandings were held regarding each term. It was agreed that there should be different standards for short-term and long-term facilities. The Advisory Committee developed four basic recommendations for how the Department ofCorrections (DOC) Administrative Rules Drafting Committee should proceed and identified somebasic problem areas that existed in the most recent proposed administrative rules. The AdvisoryCommittee submits this document with optimism that this process will be successful and withgreat hopes that rules and new licensing provisions will be adopted and that this long process thatbegan at the Department of Family Services and transferred to the DOC will finally come tofruition.

Shared Definitions:

1. Standards: guidelines for acceptable professional practice.
2. Rules: Administrative Rules prepared as provided in the Montana Administrative ProceduresAct (MAPA) in Title 2, chapter 4, MCA, that govern the licensing procedure for regional andcounty youth detention facilities, 41-5-1802, MCA.
3. Licensing is a process for determining minimal compliance with administrative rules. Inherentin this process is a provision for compliance enforcement.

Recommendations:

1. The DOC Administrative Rules Drafting Committee should conduct an exercise of goingthrough the proposed Administrative Rules that have been prepared by the DOC. There shouldbe a review of those rules in light of the American Correctional Association (ACA) mandatorystandards and a comparison to the existing rules. The rules should represent the floor beneathwhich a detention center may not fall. It was believed that there may be rules that can be pareddown or consolidated and that some of the ACA language may be better than current DOClanguage. There may need to be additional rules to cover the major life, health, safety, and otherconstitutional issues and to assist counties in preventing major litigation. Information was sharedthat Bob Veerdon, ACA Policy and Standards Director, believed that the mandatory standardswere not in and of themselves sufficient and that if any of the ACA mandatory standards areviolated, then a facility should be closed down. As stated in the definitions, complianceenforcement must be a necessary component of licensing. If there is no enforcement of the rules,such as provisional licenses, then what is the point of licensure? The DPHHS health statutes mayoffer some examples of statutory language for enforcement.

2. Once the new rules are completed, a similar exercise should be conducted on the inspectiontool to see if it can become more user-friendly to deal with major issues without micromanaging afacility.

3. It was noted that MAPA, in 2-4-305(3), MCA, requires a citation to the specific section orsections in the MCA that the rule purports to implement. It was noted that the statutory languageguiding juvenile detention center licensing rules is sparse and that the DOC should identify areasthat may be necessary to request additional statutory language so that the DOC has theappropriate authority and can enforce the rules that it adopts.

4. There may be other problem areas that the DOC may identify in the above-recommendedprocesses. If the problem areas are not able to be solved by the DOC through the MAPA processor are perhaps inappropriate for the DOC to address, then the DOC should bring those issues andany recommendations back to the attention of the Correctional Standards and OversightCommittee.

Specific Problem Areas Noted:

1. Education: Issues were raised regarding jurisdiction of and funding for education of the youthwho are placed in a juvenile detention center. Although the issues are broader than those underthe control of the DOC, it is recommended that the DOC treat education of youth in detention asan important licensing issue, but give broad flexibility in the rules to allow the local jurisdictions tofind their own solutions to providing educational services until a broader solution is found.

2. Training: Since the juvenile detention officer training issue is as yet unresolved, but there aresolutions being researched by the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Council andMACo over the next few months, it is suggested that the DOC adopt rules that are flexible andallow the POST Council's technical assistance and any legislative proposals by MACo to resolvethe specific training requirements. The ACA standards may provide some additional informationthat would be useful in this area. Training for the facility directors has also been an issue, and it isrecommended that the DOC rules allow for a wide variety in education and experience or acombination thereof.

3. The use of the term "personnel files" in the proposed rules has caused confusion. It isrecommended that the DOC be more precise in its terminology and realize that the term"personnel file" has a specific meaning in many county jurisdictions. The use of terms should beclarified to describe the actual types of information that may be required from the files. Also, theissue of location of records versus their accessibility should be discussed. Records should bemade accessible to the licensing specialist so the review is efficient and effective, but requiring anactual location or storage of the records may not be the appropriate solution. It is recommendedthat the DOC specifically enumerate the records that the licensing specialist needs to review, aswell as where and when they must be accessible for the licensing inspections, leaving the actuallocation where records are stored up to the administrating agency.

Conclusion:

This report concludes the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Detention Standards andAdministrative Rules active involvement in the process. Many of the members of the DOCAdministrative Rules Drafting Committee participated and will provide continuity in the process. It is recommended that Brenda Elias of the Montana Advocacy Program be appointed to continueher participation in the process. The Juvenile Issues Subcommittee and the CorrectionalStandards and Oversight Committee would appreciate an update of the process at its finalmeeting, and as its staff, I am willing to assist in any way possible.

Provided by Montana Legislative Services

Please email comments or suggestions about this web page to Lisa Mecklenberg Jackson, Legislative Librarian
Updated Nov. 23, 1999