Montanan Legislative Branch - Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Mental Health Study Commission Report 1996

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND JUVENILE MENTAL HEALTH STUDYCOMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMISSION; DIRECTING THECOMMISSION TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MONTANAJUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND JUVENILE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM; APPROPRIATING FUNDSFOR THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND ATERMINATION DATE.

WHEREAS, the Montana Youth Court Act is now 20 years old and has been bothamended and litigated numerous times; and

WHEREAS, juvenile court and probation philosophy and practice have changed;and

WHEREAS, national attention has been focused on the issue of youthviolence; and

WHEREAS, a performance audit report issued by the Legislative Auditor inJune 1993 concluded that Montana's juvenile justice system suffers from a lackof coordination and that current reforms are occurring without a formal planningprocess; and

WHEREAS, the 54th Legislature will be asked to consider amending severalmajor provisions of the Montana Youth Court Act; and

WHEREAS, it is important to strike a balance that protects the communityfrom delinquent youth, imposes accountability for offenses, and equips juvenileoffenders with the competencies to live productively in the community; and

WHEREAS, it is important to consider issues such as initiation ofproceedings, jurisdiction and transfer, rights of youth, procedure before theyouth courts, disposition, confidentiality, and mental health considerations inorder to achieve a balance; and

WHEREAS, it is important that all services to youth in the juvenile justicesystem and mental health services delivery system be coordinated in a single,seamless continuum of care and treatment.

THEREFORE, the Legislature finds it appropriate that an interim commissionbe established and assigned to complete a comprehensive review and assessment ofthe Montana juvenile justice system and the mental health services deliverysystem for youth and develop a plan to ensure the effective and efficientdelivery of services to all youth in those systems.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Juvenile justice study commission -- composition -- vacancies.(1) There is a juvenile justice study commission.

(2) The commission is composed of the following members:

(a) two members of the house of representatives, one from each party,appointed by the speaker of the house;

(b) two members of the senate, one from each party, appointed by thepresident of the senate;

(d) a youth court judge, appointed by the governor;

(e) a justice of the peace, appointed by the governor from three candidatesnominated by the Montana magistrates' association;

(f) a member of the youth justice advisory council, appointed by thegovernor from three candidates nominated by the board of crime control;

(g) a parent or guardian of a youth being treated or supervised, appointedby the governor;

(h) a juvenile probation officer appointed by the governor from threecandidates nominated by the Montana juvenile probation officers association;

(i) a county attorney, appointed by the governor from three candidatesnominated by the county attorneys association;

(j) a victim of a violent crime committed by a youth, appointed by thegovernor;

(k) a member of a private agency that provides treatment services to youth,appointed by the governor;

(l) a young adult who was formerly adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquentor youth in need of supervision, appointed by the governor; and

(m) one employee each of the department of family services, the board ofcrime control, and the department of corrections and human services, who shallserve as nonvoting members.

(3) The members of the commission shall elect a presiding officer fromamong the members.

(4) A vacancy occurring on the commission must be filled in the same manneras the original appointment.

Section 2. Meetings. (1) The presiding officer shall schedule meetings ofthe commission as considered necessary and shall give notice of the time andplace of each meeting to the members of the commission. At least one meeting mustbe held in each mental health region.

(2) The commission may adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of itsmeetings.

Section 3. Reimbursement of expenses -- compensation. (1) Each member ofthe commission, except the legislative members appointed under [section 1], isentitled to reimbursement for expenses as provided in 2-18-501 through 2-18-503.

(2) A legislative member appointed under [section 1] is entitled tocompensation and expenses as provided in 5-2-302.

Section 4. Powers and duties -- staff support -- recommendations --report. (1) The commission shall make a thorough study of the juvenile justicesystem and youth mental health services delivery system. The study must include:

(a) a comprehensive review of past and present programs used tosuccessfully rehabilitate youth and reduce juvenile crime;

(b) a review of methods and programs in other states and nations that havebeen documented as a success in treating and rehabilitating youth;

(c) the development of a juvenile justice and mental health treatmentcontinuum that provides for community protection, youth accountability, youthcompetency, meaningful restitution, and successful reintegration of youth intothe community;

(d) a definition and delineation of the roles and responsibilities of thedepartment of family services and other state and local government agenciesworking with youth;

(e) a definition and delineation of the roles and responsibilities of thejuvenile justice system and the youth mental health services delivery system; and

(f) a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of each state youthcorrectional facility and of each detention facility operated by the state,including the feasibility of privatizing each facility.

(2) The legislative council shall supply staff support to the commission.

(3) The commission is authorized to secure information of any type from anyagency, board, or commission or from any independent organization. Any stateagency, board, or commission shall supply information upon the request of thecommission.

(4) On or before December 1, 1996, the commission shall submit to the 55thlegislature a report of its findings and conclusions. The report must containrecommendations for legislation, including a draft of the proposed legislation.The report must also contain a discussion related to any area of study for whichthe commission does not recommend legislation and an explanation of whylegislation is not recommended.

Section 5. Authority to accept funding -- appropriation of federal funds.(1) The legislative council is authorized to accept funds appropriated from theboard of crime control for the purpose of conducting the study identified in[section 4].

(2) There is allocated to the legislative council from the youth justiceadvisory council $20,000 in funds granted to the state board of crime control forthe youth justice council by the federal office of juvenile justice anddelinquency prevention. The funds may be used only for fulfilling the duties ofthe commission, including:

(a) reimbursing or compensating the members as provided in [section 3];

(b) contracting for services to execute the study to be conducted by thecommission; and

(3) Funds allocated to the legislative council on behalf of the commissionbut not expended prior to the termination date specified in [section 7] must bereturned to the youth justice advisory council within 60 days of the terminationdate.

(4) The funds identified in this section must be deposited in quarterlyinstallments that are sufficient to meet the commission's costs for each quarterin an account in the state special revenue fund to the credit of the legislativecouncil. The first installment must be deposited on or before July 1, 1995. Thelegislative council staff may not begin work on the study until the firstinstallment has been deposited.

Section 6. Effective date. [This act] is effective July 1, 1995.

Section 7. Termination. [This act] terminates June 30, 1997.

-END-

INTRODUCTION

At the risk of taking flak, the title of this report paraphrases the title of therecent publication It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, bythe First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The titles of the First Lady's book andof this report basically sum up the findings of the Juvenile Justice and JuvenileMental Health Study Commission quite aptly. Raising our young is a difficulttask, and no single family, school, or community can do it alone. Good familieshave hard times and need help. Good children have hard times and need help. Asthe Commission delved into the world of juvenile justice and mental health, themembers and staff discovered that it is an incredibly complex network of systemsand programs. If for some reason the help is not available, the trouble canincrease and the problems can deepen and often come to the attention of thejustice system. The justice system is grounded in each community. It is withinthe justice system that many youth receive services from other systems, such asthe mental health system or the child welfare system. All children attend schoolat one time or another, and schools may or may not interact with the otheragencies from whom a child is receiving services. The greater the problems, themore areas of a youth's life are affected and must be addressed by the solutions.

This report is not written as a piece of nonfiction to be read from cover tocover. It is written as a reference tool and guide to the many areas that theCommission studied. Chapters 1 and 2 offer information about how the Commissioncame about and its activities over the 1995-96 interim. Chapter 3 offers a briefhistory of the area of juvenile justice, some state and national statistics, anoverview of juvenile justice and mental health services in the state, a summaryof some of the Legislative Audit Division findings from a 1993 performance auditof juvenile justice in Montana, and a description of the mental health system. The Commission's findings are described in Chapter 4, and their recommendationsare summarized in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of how theCommission fulfilled the mandates of House Bill No. 240 as well as some areasthat warrant future study. The Appendix contains an inventory of juvenilejustice and mental health resources in the state. It is organized by level ofgovernment and state agency and includes an organizational chart and map ofresources. There is some limited budget information included.

The reader should use the Table of Contents for reference and pick and choose theareas of most interest. The author was not able to capture everything that theCommission discussed or heard, but the minutes of the meetings are availablethrough the Legislative Services Division.

The terms "child", "children", "youth", and "juvenile" are used interchangeablythroughout this report. The various sources often use a specific term, and theauthor retained that term to preserve the essence that the sources intended. Generally, all of the terms refer to persons under 18 years of age. The terms"child" and "children" tend to denote those who are younger, but also imply arole in a family. "Youth" is intended to be a very general term and allinclusive and is the term used in the Montana Youth Court Act. "Juvenile" meansthe same thing, but tends to be associated with delinquency and carries thatnegative connotation.

CHAPTER 1 -- BACKGROUND

House Bill No. 240 (Ch. 436, L. 1995) created the Juvenile Justice and JuvenileMental Health Study Commission (Commission). House Bill No. 240 began as a studyof the Montana Youth Court Act, the statutes that govern the juvenile justicesystem. Greater legislative attention was placed on the Youth Court Act becauseof proposals contained in other bills. As House Bill No. 240 moved through thesystem, it evolved into a study of the broader spectrum of juvenile services, notonly the justice system, but also the juvenile mental health system.

1995 Legislative Action

The 1995 Legislature enacted four other significant pieces of legislationregarding juvenile issues: House Bill No. 150 (Ch. 403), clarifying thecomposition and duties of a youth placement committee; House Bill No. 380 (Ch.438), establishing extended jurisdiction prosecution; House Bill No. 429 (Ch.466), generally revising the Youth Court confidentiality provisions; and HouseBill No. 540 (Ch. 528), generally revising the Youth Court Act. The traditionalview of the juvenile court system was being challenged with demands to makeoffending youths more accountable for their actions, demands for greatercommunity protection, and demands to reduce juvenile violence and crime.

In addition to the five bills directly affecting juvenile issues, legislation wasenacted that reorganized several Executive Branch agencies that affect juvenilecorrections and juvenile mental health services. The Juvenile CorrectionsDivision of the former Department of Family Services was transferred to the newDepartment of Corrections. The remainder of the former Department of FamilyServices and the human services programs of the former Department of Correctionsand Human Services was transferred to the new Department of Public Health andHuman Services. The sum effect of these legislative actions resulted insignificant changes to the administration of state juvenile justice and mentalhealth services.

Mental Health Changes

Mental health services are experiencing further change. The Legislature, in a1993 Special Session and in the 1995 Session, enacted legislation authorizing theDepartment of Social and Rehabilitation Services (now the Department of PublicHealth and Human Services) to pursue a managed care program for public mentalhealth services. The Request for Proposals (RFP) process has been ongoing for thepast two years and has included an application for a federal waiver. On August2, 1996, Montana received a waiver from the Health Care Financing Administrationof the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to implement the Medicaid-funded aspects of the new mental health access plan. On August 12, 1996, the RFPwas released. The deadline for proposal submission was October 8, 1996. TheDepartment of Public Health and Human services anticipated awarding the contractto a managed care organization in mid-November and beginning the implementationof the contract in December.⁽¹⁾

House Bill No. 240

As enacted, House Bill No. 240 created the Juvenile Justice and Juvenile MentalHealth Study Commission. The Commission was composed of 17 members includinglegislators, and representatives of the public, victims, parents, youthoffenders, youth services providers, state agencies, Youth Court, Justice Court,juvenile probation, County Attorneys, and the Youth Justice Advisory Council. The final "whereas" clause in the preamble of House Bill No. 240 stated that aninterim committee was being established to:

complete a comprehensive review and assessment of the Montanajuvenile justice system and the mental health services deliverysystem for youth and develop a plan to ensure the effective andefficient delivery of services to youth in those systems.

Section 4 of House Bill No. 240 gave strong direction for the course of thestudy:

The Commission shall make a thorough study of the juvenile justicesystem and youth mental health services delivery system. The studymust include:

(a) a comprehensive review of past and present programs usedto successfully rehabilitate youth and reduce juvenile crime;

(b) a review of methods and programs in other states andnations that have been documented as a success in treating andrehabilitating youth;

(c) the development of a juvenile justice and mental healthtreatment continuum that provides for community protection, youthaccountability, youth competency, meaningful restitution, andsuccessful reintegration of youth into the community;

(d) a definition and delineation of the roles andresponsibilities of the department of family services and otherstate and local government agencies working with youth;

(e) a definition and delineation of the roles andresponsibilities of the juvenile justice system and the youth mentalhealth services delivery system; and

(f) a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of eachstate youth correctional facility and of each detention facilityoperated by the state, including the feasibility of privatizing eachfacility.

House Bill No. 240 also directs the Commission to submit to the 55th Legislaturea report of its findings and conclusions. The report must containrecommendations for legislation, including a draft of the proposed legislation. The report must also contain a discussion related to any area of study for whichthe Commission does not recommend legislation and an explanation of whylegislation is not recommended.

Balanced and Restorative Justice

The Commission was invited to a preinterim meeting by the Youth Justice AdvisoryCouncil that featured Kay Pranis of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Shespoke on the philosophy of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) adopted by theMontana Youth Justice Advisory Council as "the hallmark of good program andphilosophy"⁽²⁾ and as the measure by which to judge the programs that are applyingfor grant funds and the programs that are receiving the funds. The concepts arequoted in the mission statement of the Department of Corrections and the purposestatement of the Youth Court Act.

The philosophy of BARJ includes three goals: community protection,accountability, and competency development. BARJ is based on the precept thatthe community is a party to any offense committed by its youth and that, as such,the community needs to be protected and to feel safer if justice is to have beenserved. Youth must be held accountable for their actions in order for the victimto experience justice. How to accomplish the goal of reintegration of an offenderinto the community has to be determined by developing whatever competencies ayouth needs to participate positively in society. The offenders generally returnto the community, so the community must participate in the justice system for itto be in balance. The Commission took no action specifically on the BARJapproach but heard testimony from practitioners in the justice community thathave adopted the approach.

~~~

CHAPTER 2 -- COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

Meetings and Public Hearings

The Commission held seven, two-day meetings across the state. House Bill No. 240directed the Commission to hold a public hearing in each of the five mentalhealth regions in the state. The Commission also held a preinterim meetingfunded by the Youth Justice Advisory Council in Helena in June of 1995. TheCommission held meetings in Miles City (Region I), Kalispell (Region V),Billings, (Region III), Helena (Region IV), Great Falls (Region II), and Missoula(Region V). The Commission's final meeting was held in Helena.

The Commission had an extensive interested persons list of approximately 500persons. The list contained juvenile probation offices, Tribal Courts, youth andother advocacy organizations, Justices of the Peace, County Attorneys, police andsheriff's offices, private mental health and other providers, Managing ResourcesMontana team and board members, residential treatment programs, mental healthcenters, District Court Judges, interested legislators, state and federalagencies, and many others. A press release was sent to all daily newspapers andto each weekly newspaper for each meeting in the mental health region that theCommission was visiting. Media coverage of the Commission meetings varied acrossthe state.

Each meeting consisted of a public hearing, testimony from juvenile justice andmental health professionals, tours of local facilities or presentations by areaprograms, reorganization updates, and Commission and Subcommittee work sessions.

The first meeting was held in Miles City. The Commission utilized theTelemedicine Network and had multiple, videoconference sites to allow additionalpublic attendance. The Commission held part of its meeting and heardpresentations at the Pine Hills School and at the Mental Health Center. TheCommission members received a copy of the Montana Youth Court Act: 1995 Overviewand a report from the Legislative Auditor's staff on the 1993 and 1995performance audits of juvenile justice in Montana.

The second meeting began with a tour of the Swan River Correctional Facility(boot camp) and concluded with the remainder of the meeting in Kalispell. TheCommission toured the Flathead County Detention Facility. It was at this meetingthat the Commission divided into three Subcommittees and determined one of thefollowing areas for each to study: the Youth Court Act, Mental Health andJustice, and Systems Organization. The Commission meeting was scheduled to alsoallow Commission members to participate in a Key Decision Maker Projectconference hosted by the Center for the Study of Youth Policy.

The third meeting was held in Billings, and the Commission toured the YouthServices Center and the Yellowstone Treatment Center. In its first threemeetings, the Commission had experienced a great deal of testimony dealing withchild protective issues with the Department of Family Services, which wasgenerally out of the purview of the Commission but interrelated in the minds ofthe families in the system. It was an important lesson for the Commission torealize that the systems are confusing to the public and that many of thesefamilies are in contact with multiple systems at the same time.

The fourth meeting was held in Helena and had an education theme. The Commissionreceived updates on the Attorney General's Juvenile Violence Task Force and theJoint Oversight Committee on Children and Families. Presentations were made onthe Montana Youth Alternatives Programs, sex offender data collection, schoolsafety teams and violence, special education, a local alternative high school andadolescent treatment program and local juvenile probation programs.

The fifth meeting was held in Great Falls. The Commission toured the CascadeCounty Youth Services Center and received an update from the Attorney General'sJuvenile Violence Task Force. Staff of the Department of Corrections reportedon the initial recommendations that would be presented to the Legislature. TheSubcommittees began to report their findings and recommendations.

The sixth meeting was held in Missoula. The Commission participated in aroundtable discussion with youth from area high schools. Updates were receivedfrom the Youth Violence Task Force and a Department of Corrections task force. Information on the potential effects of two Subcommittee proposals, involvingdriver's license revocation and suspension for minors in possession, was receivedfrom staff of the Department of Justice. Representatives from the JuvenileProbation Officer's Association shared their proposals with the Commission. TheSubcommittees reported their final recommendations to the full Commission, whoforwarded the majority of the proposals to the final meeting for adoption.

The seventh and final meeting was held in Helena. The Commission held a secondroundtable discussion with area youth who had varying levels of involvement withthe justice system. The Commission participated in a conference call with aformer Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention consultant regardingthe Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). TheCommission finalized their findings and adopted recommendations.

Subcommittee Work

At the second meeting of the Commission, three subcommittees were appointed towork in closer detail on three areas of the study: the Youth Court Act, MentalHealth and Justice, and Systems Organization. The Subcommittees worked onspecific issues at each Commission meeting. The membership and the issues foreach Subcommittee were as follows:

YOUTH COURT ACT

Larry Epstein, Chair

Representative Brad Molnar, Vicechair

Janice Henderson

Dick Meeker

Honorable John Larson

Candy Wimmer

(Senator Mike Halligan)

- restitution

- status offenders/truancy

- confidentiality

- parental rights and responsibility

- detention

MENTAL HEALTH/JUSTICE

Craig Anderson, Chair

Representative Linda McCulloch, Vicechair

Derek Cabrera

Robin Bullock

Senator Mike Sprague

(Jani McCall)

- drug/alcohol abuse

- conduct disorder

- sex offenders

- long-term and secure care for boys and girls

SYSTEMS ORGANIZATION/COORDINATION

Jani McCall, Chair

Fred Anderson, Vicechair

Lois Poulton

Mike Ferriter

Hank Hudson

(Senator Mike Halligan)

- provider and agency coordination

- reservation coordination

- early intervention/prevention

- school issues/alternative education

At each Commission meeting, the Subcommittees reported their work, and at thefifth and sixth meetings, the Subcommittees presented tentative recommendations. Most of these recommendations were endorsed by the Commission in its finalrecommendations, and those will not be reiterated here. The recommendations thatwere not forwarded will be discussed briefly.

The Mental Health and Justice Subcommittee expressed a concern that theCommission needed to explore the involuntary commitment laws for youth and todefine the responsibilities within the Youth Court Act regarding danger to othersand the mental health laws regarding danger to self. The Commission did notaddress this issue because there was a group of state agency personnel workingon this who had not finalized any proposals with regard to mental healthcommitments for youth.

The Systems Organization Subcommittee had initially included a recommendationthat general education tuition that is charged to an out-of-district student beplaced in the miscellaneous fund to be used for specific costs incurred by thedistrict in educating the student. The Commission made a recommendation to thiseffect regarding special education funds but did not recommend the same forgeneral education tuition as the major concern was with special education youthand their impact on the new school district. Further, the Commission did notwish to run afoul of equalization concerns.

The Systems Organization Subcommittee and the Youth Court Act Subcommittee bothrecommended that habitual truancy and ungovernability be treated as misdemeanorcrimes in Justice, Municipal, and City Courts. The Commission did not pursuethis recommendation because of concerns by Justices of the Peace that theircourts would be swamped with additional cases and that they would not have theresources to absorb this responsibility. Adding to their burgeoning caseloadswould only delay the consequences for these youth, which may exacerbate theproblem of disrespect of the system and the belief that nothing would happen tothem. The Juvenile Probation Officer's Association recommended a similarapproach, intending that status offenders be removed from the Youth Court'sresponsibility, although the Association did not specify to whom theresponsibility should go. The Commission believed that transferring the caseswithout additional resources would not solve any of the problems; instead, theypursued an alternative recommendation to create the "youth in need ofintervention" and assessment programs in order to provide immediate sanctions andadditional resources for the status offenders.

Recommendations that the Commission adopted will specifically enumerate thatrunning away and truancy are offenses under the Youth Court Act and that habitualtruancy will be dealt with through greater use of graduated sanctions.

The Youth Court Act Subcommittee was pursuing alternative forms of detention suchas secure holdovers (by current definition, holdovers are nonsecure). The "youthin need of intervention" recommendation was pursued instead.

The Youth Court Act Subcommittee considered a proposal revising the penaltiesapplicable to persons under 18 years of age who are convicted of the offense ofpossession of an intoxicating substance. Some of the considerations includedrevocation or suspension of the driver's license. Information received from theDepartment of Justice's legal staff indicated that revocation or suspension ofdriver's licenses may have unintended consequences of higher car insurancepremiums or of an entire family being dropped from insurance. Youth under 15years of age do not have driver's licenses and would be unaffected, theconsequences for regaining a license after revocation are difficult, and manyfamilies rely on teen drivers for family reasons. A Minors in Possession TaskForce had made changes to the statutes in 1995, and the Department of Justicerecommended leaving the statutes alone until the result of the 1995 changes isknown.

The Youth Court Act Subcommittee also raised the issue of the manner of fundingdetention. The Commission acknowledged the concern by making a finding but didnot pursue any additional changes. The Commission found that juvenile detentioncosts are currently partially reimbursed through a grant program and thattransportation costs are a significant issue and should remain a reimbursablecost.

Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program

The Commission expressed interest in hearing of the Serious Habitual OffenderComprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). SHOCAP is a program that was introducedby the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 1983. SHOCAP seeks to improve public safety by involving those who work in lawenforcement, prosecution, education, probation, corrections, and social servicesin a cooperative process to share information and manage juvenile justice cases. The program provides the structure for focusing attention on serious habitualoffenders and enhances the quality and relevance of information exchanged throughactive interagency collaboration.⁽³⁾

The Commission held a conference call at their last meeting with Robert O. Heck,a retired consultant who developed SHOCAP for the OJJDP. Mr. Heck informed theCommission of his 94%-4%-2% theory. Ninety-four percent of all the youth whocome in contact with the juvenile justice system need only to be recorded asimpacting the system and if they are treated with benign neglect will turn outfine. Four percent of youth are chronic repeat offenders and continue to hit thesystem. Prevention and treatment programs must be focused on this 4%. Mr. Hecksaid that currently, most grant money for treatment and prevention programs isgoing for good-bad kids. They may be trouble on the street but they are notcriminals, and Mr. Heck added that almost all of the rehabilitation programs thathe has seen are poorly directed toward the wrong youth.

Two percent of the serious habitual offenders are incorrigible and are careercriminals. Mr. Heck believes that they must be, for the rest of their life,incarcerated, supervised, or under some type of control or they will die. SHOCAPwas intended as a way to identify the youth 14 to 17 years of age who wereserious habitual offenders.

The Commission struggled with basic principles similar to SHOCAP regarding theMontana systems. Testimony was received that the various entities involved withyouth are not cooperating and collaborating as they should and that informationis not being shared with all parties as needed. Because of the delay inreceiving Mr. Heck's testimony, the Commission did not act on SHOCAPspecifically, but many of its recommendations reflect the principles that led tothe development of SHOCAP. SHOCAP is most effective in larger communities, andMr. Heck recommended that for Montana's purposes, a regional or statewide systemwould probably be the most effective. There is nothing in Montana's statutes toprevent Montana law enforcement or other entities from instituting a program suchas SHOCAP.⁽⁴⁾ The OJJDP provides a training and technical assistance program forjurisdictions interested in SHOCAP and has included it as a component of theComprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.⁽⁵⁾

National Speakers

The Commission was privileged to hear from the following national speakers:

Kay Pranis, Restorative Justice Planner, Department of Corrections, Minnesota

Dr. Marina Barnett, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, Philadelphia PA

Shannon Wilbur, Youth Law Center, San Francisco, CA

Lew Whitney, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR

Hunter Hurst, III, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, PA

Robert O. Heck, retired consultant, SHOCAP

Staff Presentations on Behalf of the Commission

Many organizations were interested in the Commission's activities and invitedstaff to make presentations regarding the Commission's progress. Staff madepresentations to the following organizations:

State Special Education Advisory Council

Children's Committee of the Mental Health Association of Montana

Montana Association of Counties

Attorney General's Task Force on Juvenile Violence

Joint Oversight Committee on Children and Families

Casey Family Program Child Welfare Conference

Montana Children's Alliance

Montana Association of Homes and Services for Children

~~~

CHAPTER 3 -- JUVENILE JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTHSERVICES

Brief History of Juvenile Justice

Juvenile justice has developed from the doctrine of parens patriae, "parent ofthe country" or "common guardian of the community". Under this doctrine, theright of the state superseded parental rights if the parents were seen as unfitor not up to the task of the education, training, and moral development of theirchild.

The philosophy of youth conduct as distinct from that of adults evolved to theextent that the first separate juvenile court was established in the UnitedStates in Illinois in 1899⁽⁶⁾. The current juvenile justice systems were developedafter World War II and were characterized by a centralized administration ofjuvenile facilities with training and treatment as its goals, rather thanretribution. This continued to be an institutional model. In the 1960s, withMassachusetts in the lead, the trend began toward deinstitutionalization anddeveloping community-based services. The philosophy was changing in response toescalating costs, violence, and tension related to race relations in the countryas a whole. Montana has had separate statutes for the processing of delinquentyouth since 1907 (Ch. 126, L. 1907). The statutes were recodified in 1943, andthe current Youth Court Act was enacted in 1974.

The juvenile justice system is intended to be a civil procedure, not a criminalprocedure. It is more of a hybrid in actuality, but where the procedures mimicthe criminal system, youth are entitled to the same rights as adults under theMontana Constitution, Article II, section 15. There are provisions to transferyouth, dependent on age, to District Court for certain crimes and the youth isthen subject to the same criminal justice system as adults. The only differencemay be in the place of incarceration, again dependent on the youth's age.

Juvenile justice has traditionally been a local and state concern but was raisedto the national level when the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP) was established through the Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974. There are four basic core requirements that astate must comply with, and in doing so, the state may qualify for participationin a formal grants program to access federal funds. The four core requirementsare:

(1) the deinstitutionalization of status offenders;

(2) the separation of juveniles and adults in jails and lockups;

(3) the removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups; and

(4) identification, assessment, and planning to confront the problem ofdisproportionate minority confinement.

Montana has been in compliance with the JJDPA and has regularly qualified forfederal grants. During 1996, JJDPA was up for Congressional reauthorization andnumerous pieces of legislation were introduced to significantly change thefederal law. No changes were made by the close of this year's session, and theJJDPA was reauthorized through an appropriation. This leaves the JJDPA up forreauthorization by the new Congress in 1997.

Society has gone more than full circle from the desire for increasedinstitutionalization, retribution, and punishment to a desire for rehabilitationand treatment and back again. Rehabilitation has not reduced the amount ofcrime, and the escalation of violence by juveniles has alarmed society. Thedesire to control disruptive youth is universal, but the method of control iscontroversial. Institutions provide control, but at the far end of the continuumfrom family control. Critics of institutionalization of youth point to theeffects of the abrogation of parental responsibility (whether by choice or byforce), the risks of concentrating delinquent youth together, the possiblenegative effects of association by placing a first-time or status offender witholder, more delinquent youths, the stigma of delinquency being placed on a youthwith possible life-long effects, and the effect of institutionalizing youth, suchas the lack of training youth with life skills necessary to be successful infamily and social life.⁽⁷⁾

The pendulum has swung back and forth from the desire for retribution andpunishment to the desire to treat and rehabilitate. Neither approach has beencompletely successful, and neither approach has been completely discredited. Somewould argue that the resources have never been sufficient to allow for success. The base of the discussion is still philosophically how one defines childhood andyouth and whether or not youth should be held to the same standards to whichadults are held. The standards to which adults are held are also in question andsubject to the same cycles and pendulum swings. These standards that apply toyouth also have to include the same rights and due process as are provided foradults if the accountability is going to be the same.

Juvenile Justice Statistics

Recent statistics have alarmed many with concerns regarding the rise in juvenilecrime. In 1995, the nation as a whole actually experienced a decrease in thecrime rate, although juvenile crime rates, especially for violent crime, seem tobe bucking the trend. According to statistics from the Montana Board of CrimeControl Juvenile Probation Information System, the total number of crimes againstpersons has risen, but the numbers of homicides and rapes for 1995 are lower than1994, although still slightly higher than 1993 (see Appendix). Juvenilestatistics in Montana must be used with caution, especially as Montana is lightlypopulated and small shifts in numbers can represented large shifts inproportional data. For example, FBI uniform crime reports are reported as ratesper 100,000 population and in small counties and states, the rates may appearinflated based on a small number of cases.

According to the FBI's Violent Crime Index for 1992, juveniles accounted for12.8% of violent crimes cleared by arrest nationally, and they accounted for 14%for 1995. The juvenile responsibility for violent crime reached its lowest levelin 25 years in 1987, when, based on clearance data, only 8.5% of violent crimeswere committed by juveniles. Since then, the levels have risen back to thelevels experienced in the mid-1970s. Juveniles were responsible for 9% of allmurders in 1992, the highest level in a generation.

Nationally, juveniles were charged with committing 14.1% of all forcible rapesknown to police in 1992. This compares to a low of 9.4% in 1975 and a high in1968 of 14.8%. Juveniles were charged with committing 15.9% of robberies in1992, down from a high of 23% in 1969, but up from the 10% level in 1989. Aggravated assault charges were at 12%, which is higher than the stable ratesfrom 1965 through 1991, ranging from 9% to 11%.⁽⁸⁾

Juveniles are not only perpetrators of crime, but in greater numbers are victimsof juvenile and adult crime. According to the National Crime VictimizationSurvey, juveniles experience a victimization rate that is twice that of adults18 to 25 years of age and six times that of adults 35 years of age or older.Violent victimizations against juveniles accounted for 23% of the 6.62 millionvictimizations in 1992, as well as one-fourth of the assaults and one-fifth ofthe robberies. Of all violent victimizations, 27.1% were aggravated assaults.⁽⁹⁾

The overall crime rate for 1995 was 2% lower than in 1994, the lowest since 1985,11% lower than 1991, and 4% lower than 1986. The national crime index rate was5,278 per 100,000 population, the crime index for cities outside of MetropolitanStatistical Areas (all cities in Montana except for Billings) is 5,315, and thecrime index for the West was 6,083.⁽¹⁰⁾ Montana's crime index rate for 1995 was5,484 major crimes per 100,000, a 16% increase over the past year. This increasemay be attributed partially to a 17% increase in the rate of occurrence oflarcenies and partially to fewer agencies reporting. In a state with a smallerpopulation, small changes in numbers of offenses may be magnified when calculatedbased on a larger population base.⁽¹¹⁾ Montana's crime rate is lower than thecrime index for the West, higher than the national average, and slightly higherthan that of rural America.

No one variable can give the entire story, and although probability of types ofoffenders or offenses can be measured, there is no predictability in knowingwhich youth may become adult offenders and which youth may grow through theirrebellion to achieve adulthood without criminal behavior. Many conditions beyonda youth's control may contribute to the youth's behavior and society's behaviortoward the youth. These conditions include poverty, family structure, abuse andneglect, and race. The OJJDP, in response to assisting the many parts of thejuvenile justice system with useful and accurate information, published JuvenileOffenders and Victims: A National Report.⁽¹²⁾ The following information isexcerpted from that report.

The juvenile population (below age 18) comprises more than 1 in 4 persons in theU.S. and is projected to continue to increase (by 15%) between 1990 and 2010. Montana's juvenile population increased 2% from 1980 to 1990, twice the U.S.average of 1% growth. The rate of growth in other surrounding states varies:Idaho 3%, Wyoming -6%, North Dakota 1%, South Dakota 9%.

Montana's juvenile population is 90% white, and nationally Montana has the fifthlargest proportion of Native Americans in the juvenile population at 9%.

Montana's proportion of juveniles under age 18 living in poverty in 1989 was 20%,with a significant difference in the white proportion (17%) and the NativeAmerican proportion (53%). The U.S. overall total of juveniles living in povertyis 18%, with the proportion of white juveniles in poverty at 12% and NativeAmerican juveniles at 39% on average. In Montana, 36 of 56 counties have over20% of all children living in poverty.

In 1990, Montana's proportion of children living in single-parent families, 19%,was below the U.S. average of 24%. Though more children are living in single-parent families, three out of four live in two-parent families. More childrenin single-parent families with only a mother present live in poverty, 46%, thanthose in single-parent families with only a father present, 24%, or in a two-parent home, 9%.

Though Montana's percentage of youth, 8%, who were ages 16 to 19 in 1990 and whowithdrew from high school without graduating is below the U.S. percent of 11%,the percent of Native Americans, 22%, is higher than the national percent ofNative Americans of 18%. (Montana law requires compulsory attendance through 16years of age.)

Black males 14 to 17 years of age are more likely than other juveniles to behomicide victims. Homicide victims under age 10 are more likely to be killed byparents (59%); and victims 10 to 17 years of age were more often killed by afriend or acquaintance (61%) than a family member (16%).

Compared with youth who were not abused or neglected, a greater proportion ofyouth who were substantiated victims of maltreatment before age 12 reportedcommitting violent acts (70% vs. 56%). A National Institute of Justice studyfound that 26% of abused or neglected children eventually had a juvenile arrestrecord, compared with 17% of children who were not abused or neglected.

For every two youth 0 to 19 years of age who were murdered in 1991, one youthcommitted suicide. Suicide increased 76% for youth 10 to 14 years old between1979 and 1991. Young suicide victims, ages 15 to 19 years, aredisproportionately male and white.

Victims report that approximately 28% of personal crimes (rape, personal robbery,aggravated and simple assault, and theft from a person) against persons 12 yearsof age or older were committed by juveniles. Male offenders committed 88% ofthese crimes, and females committed 10% of these crimes, with the remaindercommitted by both. Information on the sex and race of the juvenile offender isessentially the same as for adult offenders.

According to victims' surveys, 1 in 5 violent crimes were committed by juvenilesand 1 in 7 serious violent crimes were committed by juveniles in groups. Whenreported as violent crimes cleared by arrest of a juvenile, the number decreasedto 1 in 10.

Most juveniles have committed at least one delinquent act, fewer have an officialrecord, and very few are responsible for the majority of offenses. APhiladelphia study in 1976 found that 42% of those who had had contact with thepolice had only one contact by their 18th birthday. A study of Utah and Arizonajuvenile court records found that 59% of all youth referred to court intake oncedid not return to court again. In both studies, males are more likely torecidivate or have more than one referral. Minorities are also more likely tohave multiple official contacts.

As a youth ages, the youth is more likely to add new, more serious behaviors. The earlier onset of a delinquent career, the greater number of offenses ajuvenile is likely to commit, though the average seriousness of offenses in acareer is not related to the age at onset.

The probability of adult arrests for violent acts increases with the number ofserious violent offenses committed before age 11. Half of the males with policecontacts as juveniles had no adult arrests by age 30; nearly 4 in 10 malesarrested as adults had no juvenile record.

Montana Youth Court Act ⁽¹³⁾ ⁽¹⁴⁾

The Montana Youth Court Act (Act) contains the current statutory provisions thatprovide the parameters of treatment of youth who violate the law. The Actcelebrated its 20th birthday in 1994. In its 20-year history, the Act has beenamended approximately five dozen times, including a handful of amendments in the1993 session. Several amendments were made in the 1995 session. The MontanaSupreme Court has considered upward of 30 cases involving the Act, and itsprovisions have been the subject of close to a dozen Attorney General's Opinions.

On one hand, the continuing evolution of the Act is valuable in making sure weare keeping up with modern standards in addressing youth issues. On the otherhand, it may be a signal that we need to step back and evaluate whether the Actis meeting the needs of Montana's youth and those who serve the juvenile justicesystem.

When the Act was adopted, its philosophy--which was described as "noble andhumane"--was to offer Montana's youth a program of supervision, care, andrehabilitation. Consistent with the youth court movement, the Act recognizes theimportance of preserving the unity and welfare of the family whenever possibleand sought (as originally drafted) to remove the element of retribution. Amendments in 1995 deleted from the stated purpose of the Act the followinglanguage "to remove from youth committing violations of the law the element ofretribution", though no provision inserted "retribution" as a purpose of the Act. Prior to 1995, the Supreme Court of Montana emphasized the remedial goals of theAct, stating that commitment of a youth is strictly for rehabilitation, notretribution, and that the purpose of the Act is to provide a mechanism throughwhich the state can act in the place of the parent when necessary.

The Act represented a monumental effort to make real changes in the juvenilejustice system and has served a valuable function. Now, however, with juvenilecrime at the forefront of America's concerns, fears are being raised that ouryouth--and our society--are being failed by the juvenile justice system.

The Montana Constitution, Article II, section 15, grants the same fundamentalrights to persons under 18 years of age that are granted to adults, unlessspecifically precluded by laws that enhance the protection of youth.

The legislative purpose of the Act, as enumerated in 41-5-102, MCA, is topreserve the unity and welfare of the family whenever possible; to provide forcare, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of youth comingwithin the provisions of the Act; to prevent and reduce youth delinquency throughimmediate, consistent, enforceable, and avoidable consequences of youth'sactions; and to establish a program of supervision, care, rehabilitation,detention, competency development, community protection, and restitution; toachieve these goals in a family environment whenever possible; and to providejudicial procedures in which the parties are assured a fair, accurate hearing andrecognition and enforcement of their constitutional and statutory rights.

Juvenile Justice in Montana

As the nation goes, so goes Montana. Montana has followed the same basic historyin the development of juvenile justice as other states. Historically, the twoinstitutions for juveniles have been the Pine Hills School for boys and MountainView School for girls. Pine Hills School was founded in 1893 as the MontanaState Industrial School, at the site of the former Women's Territorial Prison,to serve "the incorrigible, the vagrant and vicious" male and female youth.⁽¹⁵⁾ Theinstitution was also used to house orphaned children.

The institution most recently known as Mountain View School for girls was foundedin 1921. Both schools were situated in rural areas, a common practice intendedto take youth away from their home environments in order to give them anopportunity for reformation of their behavior using training in agriculturalpursuits.

Montana has participated in the deinstitutionalization trend, though never astotally as did states such as Massachusetts. Most recently, Pine Hills Schoolwas scaled down in size in response to legal challenges based on civil rightsissues. Mountain View School was recently closed and replaced by a private-public program that includes a wilderness phase intended to modify behavior andto teach youth basic skills for living. Montana has participated in thedeinstitutionalization program of taking youth and keeping youth out of adultjails and has developed a juvenile detention system that is operated by thecounties and funded partially with state and federal funds.

The Commission heard proposals to allow youth to be placed back into adult jailsas punishment and to develop additional secure correctional facility beds formales at Pine Hills School. Since the closure of Mountain View School, there hasbeen no in-state secure correctional facility for girls. However, there is a newDepartment of Corrections proposal for a 16-bed secure facility for girls to belocated in Boulder and administered in conjunction with the Montana YouthAlternatives Program.

Though House Bill No. 240 mandates the Commission to study the juvenile justicesystem, juvenile justice in Montana is not really a system at all. A "system",as defined by Webster, is a "a set or arrangement of things so related orconnected as to form a unity or organic whole". Juvenile justice in Montana iscomposed of interrelated, but independent entities. There is no formal,centralized administrative oversight of the entities that is integrated in orderto provide unity. An inventory of juvenile justice and mental health resourcesis included later in this report, complete with a statewide map and anorganizational chart of governmental entities.

The various entities encompass the levels of local, state, and federal governmentand all three branches of government. The Legislative Branch is responsible forappropriating funds through various Executive Branch state agencies for programsdirectly and indirectly related to juvenile justice. The Judicial Branch isrepresented by a Youth Court in each of 21 judicial districts, each of which iscounty-funded. Each district has one or more judges who serve as Youth CourtJudge. Each district has a chief juvenile probation officer and other juvenileprobation staff.

Two Executive Branch agencies, the Department of Corrections and the Departmentof Public Health and Human Services, administer facilities and services tojuveniles involved with the justice system. A third Executive Branch agency, theCrime Control Division, administered by the Board of Crime Control, is attachedto the Department of Justice and serves as the administering agency for statefunds for detention and other programs, the granting agency for federal funds,and the administrator of juvenile probation officer training. A fourth ExecutiveBranch agency, the Office of Public Instruction, is responsible for administeringspecial education funds for youth who qualify for special education services.

The Department of Corrections assumed the duties of the former JuvenileCorrections Division of the Department of Family Services. The Department ofCorrections administers the single state youth correctional facility for boys,Pine Hills School, and the new, coeducational Montana Youth Alternatives (MYA)Program. The MYA Program was authorized partially as a replacement for theformer Mountain View School, a correctional facility for girls, that was closedin 1996. The Department of Corrections is responsible for providing forappropriate placements for youth committed to the Department during adjudication. Placements can include shelter care, foster care, treatment facilities, or securecorrectional facilities. The Department of Corrections is also responsible forjuvenile parole or aftercare, including juvenile parole officers and twotransition centers for males. Transition centers provide a residential facilityto assist youth in the transition from the secure correctional facility back intothe community.

The Department of Public Health and Human Services is responsible for mentalhealth and child welfare programs, including the licensure of foster care andout-of-home care for youth. The Department is also the state Medicaid agency;many youth in out-of-home care qualify for Medicaid assistance.

The Crime Control Division administers the Youth Justice Advisory Council,juvenile detention funding, and federal grants for juvenile programs.

Funding for juvenile justice programs is provided through local governments, bothcity and county, through state general fund money, and through federal grants. There are federal laws that must be complied with that, in turn, provide accessto limited federal funding. The Appendix contains an inventory of specificinformation on juvenile justice and mental health resources.

Summary of Legislative Audit Findings and Current Status

The Legislative Audit Division (LAD) published a Performance Audit Report onJuvenile Justice in Montana in June 1993. The audit was performed over a periodof a year by three to five staff persons. The LAD examined the judicial districtYouth Courts, the Department of Family Services Juvenile Corrections Division,including Mountain View School and Pine Hills School, juvenile transitioncenters, juvenile parole, and the role of the Montana Board of Crime Control.

The report was critical of all elements of the system. The LAD found that therewere substantial differences across the state regarding probation officertraining, the collection of management information used to determine programactivity and effectiveness, and Youth Court examination of parental contributiontoward youth placement or treatment.

With regard to the Juvenile Corrections Division, the LAD identified areas ofneeded improvement involving management controls, the Interstate Compact ofJuveniles, court-ordered restitution, training, youth transportation, and youthplacement committees. Juvenile correctional facility issues included weaknessesin management controls, treatment-related activities, education programs, andsecurity. Juvenile parole issues were identified as management controls,detention, and parole violations. The Juvenile Probation Information System(JPIS) was identified as needing increased reliability and reportingrequirements. The overall system was found lacking in management controls andmanagement information.

Following the 1993 audit, the Governor had expanded the role of the Youth JusticeAdvisory Council to advise agencies in juvenile justice policy matters and toaddress issues of communication and coordination. In a June 1995 report on thePerformance Audit Followup, many of the recommended improvements had not yet beenmade and the management of juvenile justice was still fragmented and lacking in-depth planning, coordination, and oversight throughout its components.

The Youth Justice Advisory Council has taken the responsibility to overseeprogress being made in response to the audit. A training curriculum for juvenileprobation and parole officers was developed and the majority of officers hadreceived the training. There are plans to incorporate the JPIS into the Childand Protective Services (CAPS) system, and each juvenile probation office willreceive the computer hardware to access CAPS.⁽¹⁶⁾ This will enable greatercommunication between the juvenile probation offices and the child welfare systemto assist in the communication that the audit found lacking. There have beensome problems in the implementation of the new CAPS system, and the JPISintegration has been delayed.

The responsibilities of the Juvenile Corrections Division were assumed by theDepartment of Corrections in executive reorganization. The Department hasadopted a mission statement, developed management controls, evaluatedtransportation data and needs, assigned the duties of the Interstate Compact onJuveniles to the Interstate Compact office, and adopted many policies andprocedures. The Department has developed several proposals for considerationby the 1997 Legislature to further the administration of the juvenile correctionssystem.

By the nature of the way in which juvenile justice has developed over the past50 years, there is no single administrative entity. The most basic level is inthe community with the Youth Court. Each judicial district is operated slightlydifferently, which is the essence of local control. The existence of aconsistent training curriculum will be of help in developing greater consistency,but as District Court Judges and communities differ, so will juvenile probationofficer practices. The Youth Justice Advisory Council can help to a certainextent, coordinating efforts by using standard requirements for funding andevaluation purposes.

Mental health system⁽¹⁷⁾

The mental health system that the Commission reviewed was in flux because of theexecutive reorganization and the move toward a comprehensive managed careprogram. Mental health services for children and adolescents were beingadministered through the Managing Resources Montana (MRM) Program. The MRMProgram was implemented July 1, 1993, as a form of managed care for mental healthservices for severely emotionally disturbed children and adolescents. The MRMProgram was a collaborative effort between state agencies and community mentalhealth providers and was administered through the five mental health regionprograms. The MRM Program will be subsumed under the new mental health managedcare Mental Health Access Plan.

The public mental health program in Montana, prior to reorganization, wasadministered and funded through three state agencies, the Department of Socialand Rehabilitation Services, the Department of Corrections and Human Services,and the Department of Family Services. Reorganization consolidated thesefunctions under the Department of Public Health and Human Services.

The federal Medicaid program provides services to those with sufficiently lowincomes and those who meet eligibility requirements. Services include inpatientand outpatient hospital care, residential treatment center services for childrenand adolescents, community health center services, therapeutic foster care, andtherapeutic youth group home care.

For those who are low-income but do not qualify for Medicaid, there are stategeneral revenue funds and federal block grant funds for services through thestate's five regional community mental health centers. Services for children andadolescents with serious emotional disturbances include outpatient individual andgroup therapies, residential psychiatric care, day treatment home-based services,respite care, psychiatric consultation, assessment, sex offender evaluation andtreatment, and individual and group case management.

Children who are the responsibility of the state because of neglect, abuse, orabandonment or because of actions taken by the court system require a separatecategory of services. Many of these services are provided through Medicaid orthrough the use of other federal matching funds through Title IV-A and IV-E ofthe Social Security Act. These funding streams may have changed significantlyor may have been eliminated altogether in the recent welfare reforms adopted byCongress.

Many court-ordered placements necessitate both mental health services needs andhousing needs that can be fulfilled in a residential setting. Funding forservices for youth under court order is provided through many agencies includingthe Department of Corrections, multiple divisions within the Department of PublicHealth and Human Services, and the Office of Public Instruction (OPI). Mentalhealth-related services provided in this context include therapeutic group careand therapeutic foster care.

The OPI is responsible for the education component of mental health treatment orspecial education services. The OPI oversees state compliance with the federalIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act and ensures that special educationstudents have an appropriate Individualized Education Program that is implementedwith the public schools. When a youth is placed in a residential setting, instate or out of state, the OPI is responsible for funding the education costs,typically 1/3 of the cost of placement. The OPI has no control over the numbersof youth placed or where they are placed and as a result has experienced a greatincrease in education costs for placements, which in turn negatively impactsfunding available for other students.

~~~

CHAPTER 4 -- FINDINGS

These findings were compiled throughout the interim based upon public hearingsin Miles City, Kalispell, Billings, Helena, Great Falls, and Missoula. TheCommission amended and revised them at each meeting. Chapter 6 is a discussionof the relationship of these findings with the recommendations contained inChapter 5.

Youth Mental Health and Justice Services

General Observations

1. (a) There are multiple categories of youth for which there areinsufficient services, programs, and detention, including:

(i) (severe) conduct disorder;

(ii) organic brain syndrome (OBS);

(iii) seriously emotionally disturbed (SED);

(iv) sex offenders;

(v) chemical dependency;

(vi) violent offenders;

(vii) status offenders;

(viii) criminal nonviolent offenders;

(ix) female offenders in need of a secure correctional facility.

(b) Deficiencies include:

(i) limited or nonexistent community and regional detention and sheltercare;

(ii) limited or nonexistent local day treatment;

(iii) no state-operated, long-term, secure residential mental healthfacilities (SED's, OBS, sex offenders);

(iv) no facilities for youth under 18 years of age charged in adult court.Neither Pine Hills School nor state prisons (Montana State Prison or Women'sCorrectional System) are appropriate (or legal for youth under age 16);

(v) no secure correctional facility for delinquent female youth inMontana, resulting in some youth being released inappropriately back intocommunities;

(vi) lack of meaningful and useful data;

(vii) general resistance to sharing of information by parties involved withyouth, i.e., on dangerous and violent youth who re-enter or transfer to schoolsystems;

(viii) lack of appropriate education and treatment programming in existingdetention facilities.

2. There is great concern by legislators, practitioners, and familiesregarding the number of youth being sent out of state. It is consuming greaterportions of various state agencies' funding and is difficult on youth andfamilies. The conclusion is that there is a great need for a more cost-effectivecontinuum of services in Montana.

3. Rigid categorization of children creates barriers between the education,justice, and mental health systems and also negatively affects the way in whichtreatment is able to be funded. Funding problems lead to over-definition ofyouth problems and then are used to refuse services instead of integrate servicesand provide accountability for actions. Clear definitions of the status ofchildren are needed in the Youth Court Act, and one label or definition (e.g.,mental illness) cannot be used to relieve accountability for other issues (e.g.,criminal behavior).

4. Each time that elements in the juvenile system have been discontinued orclosed, there have not been sufficient programs developed to replace them (i.e.,Twin Bridges, Swan River Forest Camp, Mountain View School, reduction of beds atPine Hills School).

5. Each Indian reservation has different resources available to it. Most havefew resources internally and have further complications because of multiplelevels of jurisdiction (BIA, IHS, tribal, state, county) for different youth. Tribes need assistance with resources for all levels of youth programs that areculturally appropriate.

6. Adolescent day treatment services, cooperation between state agencies suchas that provided by Managing Resources Montana (MRM), and local law enforcementthat can distinguish between a child with mental health problems and severedelinquency problems are meaningful and necessary for children and theirfamilies.

7. Testimony received in many areas supports more resources for treatment,early intervention, and prevention programs.

8. There is an increase in juvenile crime.⁽¹⁸⁾

(a) Violent juvenile crime in Montana has steadily increased between 1990and 1995. There has been a steady increase in handgun violence by youth.⁽¹⁹⁾

(b) In 1995, there was a general overall caseload increase of 15% over1994 for Montana's probation officers.⁽²⁰⁾

(c) From 1994 to 1995, the overall increase of violent juvenile crime of10%* in Montana was contrasted with a decrease of 22.8% nationally.⁽²¹⁾

(d) Five-year statistics show a rise in violent crime of 150%, in propertycrime of 60%, and in drug-related offenses of 400%. (NOTE: This finding wasadopted by the Commission but these statistics could not be verified by staff).⁽²²⁾

(e) Drug use nationally and in Montana has increased over the last fiveyears. Nationally, the statistics are documented in the Department of PublicHealth and Human Services' Household Survey and in the Drug Abuse WarningNetwork; overall use of all drugs among the 12 to 17 age group rose 78% between1992 and 1995. These statistics were found alarming by the Community Anti-DrugCoalitions of America who request comprehensive communitywide approaches to theproblem.⁽²³⁾

(f) These statistics are also borne out by data collected by theDepartment of Corrections and the Missoula County Probation Office.

Collaboration

1. Youth who are involved in the justice system often come from families incrisis. The state has some programs for families in various levels of crisis(mostly abuse and neglect) through the Department of Public Health and HumanServices, though there are few programs for prevention and early intervention. The two systems must be able to coordinate services, share information, and havesufficient resources at hand in order to assist these families and youth asproblems arise and to prevent future problems with both the social work andjustice systems. Some of the problems that need addressing are status offenses(drinking, runaways, truancy) as early warning signs before the family is indeeper crisis or the youth becomes delinquent.

2. There is confusion in the general public as to where the systems that dealwith children's and youth's issues begin and end. The Commission receivedtestimony at several meetings regarding the former Department of Family Servicesand its handling of child protective services and relinquishment of parentalrights. Many of these families are intertwined in child protective services,mental health programs, and the juvenile justice system. Numerous caseworkersand separate state government and court agencies make it difficult for the publicto sort through and understand the systems. The result is that there isdissatisfaction and blame between systems, parents, and caseworkers. Testimonyregarding an individual child's or youth's point of view was not received, andthere is no assurance that the needs of youth are being met.

3. There is hope that the Families Achieving Independence in Montana (FAIM)Program incorporates parental responsibility for participation in the youth'streatment and justice issues into the family contracts proposed.

4. The former Department of Family Services, now the Division of Child andFamily Services within the Department of Public Health and Human Services, hasa negative image among many parents and school districts. School districts aremost concerned with a lack of information sharing. Parents and others are mostconcerned about the perception that parents cannot discipline their own child,that children are being informed of their "rights", and that parents have norights. Clarity and consistent messages are needed from Child and FamilyProtection Services of the Division of Child and Family Services on legal formsregarding child discipline and what a parent's rights and responsibilities areunder the law. Schools need to be informed of the law and subsequent changes.

5. Collaboration among social services, private providers, Youth Courts,mental health providers, schools, law enforcement, and additional resources areneeded as part of the solution.

6. Collaboration occurs between state, county, and tribal authorities in thewestern detention region and in the eastern region. There are opportunities formore collaboration, particularly between the Fort Peck Tribal Youth DetentionFacility and Pine Hills School.

Detention, Shelter Care, and Placement Options

1. Detention facilities house preadjudicated youth, parole and probationviolators, and youth who have been transferred to adult court but whose cases arepending trial, disposition, or appeal. Without sufficient detention facilitiesand resources available, certain cases may not be pursued (e.g., statusoffenders), which leads to victim and community dissatisfaction, lack ofaccountability for offenders, and less community protection. The juvenilejustice system must be able to react expeditiously to protect the community, makeoffenders accountable, and provide the youth with the opportunity to change andbecome able to live productively within the community.

2. Counties operate long-term, secure detention facilities in only three offive detention regions (western, northcentral, southcentral). The eastern andsouthwestern regions have no county long-term, secure detention facilities andmust rely on Fort Peck tribal detention, other regions, or no facilities.

(a) The Fort Peck Tribal Youth Detention Facility has approximately 20beds. It houses both preadjudicated and postadjudicated tribal juvenileviolators and is typically filled to capacity. However, there are moreopportunities to collaborate between state and tribal authorities for thedetention and long-term placement of postadjudicated youth.

(b) The three long-term detention facilities have a total of 28 bedspaces. These beds are also used by the state to house parole violators and todetain out-of-state youth who are caught in Montana and awaiting return to theirhome state.

3. Lack of detention and other resources adversely impacts the ability ofprobation officers and parole/aftercare officers to do their jobs effectively andrenders the system ineffective due to lack of sanctions, accountability, andresponsibility.

4. The greatest need in developing a continuum of care is in midlevel andintermediate resources, such as therapeutic foster care and therapeutic grouphomes. The state must place greater resources in the lower and middle levels ofservices to avoid doing triage from the most serious cases down and to assist inprevention and early intervention.

5. Policy decisions resulting in administrative regulations and statutes thatdo not allow for the application of common sense have created difficulty inallowing creative solutions to shelter care shortages. For example, the policydecision to not fund an empty bed at a private facility (Home on the Range) inorder to make the bed available for a shelter care bed has restricted the privatefacility from expanding resources and has resulted in the shelter care bed notbeing available in eastern Montana.

6. Missoula Youth Homes, a level of care in between shelter care anddetention, received high praise from teachers and former students. Their programseeks to hold a youth accountable for the youth's actions, while addressingtreatment and educational needs.

7. A place for a "timeout" for parents and youth, especially status offenders,has been recommended by numerous persons. The security level would need to bebetween current shelter care and detention care and accessible to parents andothers on an as-needed basis.

8. Conduct-disordered youth who end up in hospital emergency rooms are aproblem. Great Falls is creating a crisis center within its juvenile detentioncenter.

9. Juvenile detention costs are partially reimbursed through a grant programadministered by the Board of Crime Control. Transportation costs are asignificant issue and should remain a reimbursable cost by the Board.

10. Some private providers are currently underfunded. There is a need toevaluate and reassess the current rate matrix utilized by the Department ofPublic Health and Human services and to establish a formula to calculate cost-of-living increases. Guidelines and policies from other similar states should beresearched in this regard.

Youth Probation and Parole Resources

1. There are 10 juvenile parole officers serving the entire state. Caseloadsvary by region. The Commission heard a proposal to combine juvenile parole withadult parole or with juvenile probation. Another proposal was offered to givejuvenile parole responsibilities to juvenile probation and to make juvenileparole officers the placement and resource experts. The juvenile parole officersare now administered through the Department of Corrections, which alsoadministers adult probation and parole. Juvenile probation officers areadministered by the 21 judicial district Youth Courts, which leads to a concernregarding standards and uniformity.

2. Juvenile probation and parole caseloads have sharply increased recently.

3. Juvenile probation officers from each judicial district have voiceddissatisfaction and frustration with lack of resources, their inability to holdyouth accountable, the increasing volume of their caseloads, information and dataproblems, court issues, and increasing youth violence. Testimony was receivedstatewide that there are insufficient resources in staffing and programs in YouthCourt.

4. There is not sufficient manpower for juvenile probation officers in alldistricts in the state. Testimony was received that one area that suffers isfollowup or followthrough.

5. The question of whether juvenile probation should be administered by CountyCommissioners was raised as a method to improve uniform communication, to dealwith probation as a unit, and to ensure ethical behavior. The important issueis standardization not administration. Other methods to ensure standardizationshould be discussed, and less-populated counties that share probation officerswith larger counties must be kept in mind.

6. Concerns regarding standards and uniformity among youth probation and YouthCourts were expressed, though not clearly articulated. Training is an area thatis being addressed at a statewide level. District Courts in Montana have adisparate funding system that includes funding for the juvenile justice system. Each judicial district confronts circumstances of population, resources, andcommunity character when dealing with juvenile problems, some to a greater extentthat others. It is the responsibility of the juvenile probation office, theDistrict Court, and the County Commissioners to deal with the problems in the waythat a particular community dictates.

Mental Health

1. The mental health managed care Request For Proposals (RFP) will affectmental health services for youth. Testimony was received that the RFP does notinclude an effective appellate review if the managed care organization (MCO)determines that treatment is not necessary, that there is no "stay-put" provisionto allow treatment to continue at state expense during appeal, and that thecontract should also include an evidentiary interpretation that gives thepatient's treatment clinician's opinion precedence over the outside examiner's.In the final version (August 13, 1996) of the RFP, conduct disorder is includedas well as discharge planning for youth with mental health needs who aredischarged from correctional facilities.

2. The utilization review program for MRM is currently decertifying youth forMedicaid payment for treatment with little notice. The result is that findingan alternative placement for treatment is very difficult.

3. Testimony was received in many areas of the state that MRM was a positiveexperience and, in many cases, the first time that the family received the realhelp that it needed from a caseworker.

4. The proposed mental health managed care contract that has received thenecessary federal waiver calls for a full-risk, multiyear contract between theMCO and the service provider. It is in the MCO's best interest to provideclinically appropriate care because it will suffer the financial consequences ifit does not. The contract with the MCO should resolve the decertificationproblems that had occurred within the MRM Program because the MCO will beresponsible for providing a continuum of care.⁽²⁴⁾

Status Offenders

1. There is a difference of opinion as to where status offenders (e.g., minorsin possession (MIP), truants, ungovernable youth, and runaways) belong, but thecommon theme is that no agency has the resources to deal with them. The juvenileprobation officers propose to take them out of the Youth Court Act. TheDepartment of Corrections proposes that schools and communities deal withtruancy, that the Department of Public Health and Human Services deal withungovernable youth, and that City and Justice Courts deal with MIPs. Statusoffenders are time-intensive, and the youth have legitimate reasons to beinvolved in all of the systems.

2. Status offenders need immediate consequences and intervention, and familiesand communities must participate. Testimony was received that some people wantedstatus offenses treated as crimes (currently, being a runaway is not a "crime").The removal of driving privileges and assessing of fines were suggestedsanctions. The Commission was informed by the Department of Justice about thevarious levels of driving sanctions and the ramifications of each. Revocationor suspension of driving privileges can result in a loss of insurance coverageby a family or exorbitant raises in premium rates. There were also concernsraised that only older teens have driving privileges and that many families relyon teens for driving for family purposes. A parent can withdraw or cancel theirfinancial responsibility for a youth's driver's license, which can result in anadministrative revocation without insurance ramification. Justice Courtscurrently have the authority to "confiscate" a youth's driver's license in an MIPcase.

3. There are concerns about how to deal with status offenders versus how todeal with youth that may be further involved in the justice system (delinquents).There is concern as to the court (Youth Court, Justice Court, or Municipal Court)in which status offenders belong and under which category the youth belong (youthin need of supervision or youth in need of care).

Family and Community Involvement

1. Family involvement, support, and responsibility need to be built into theentire continuum of juvenile programs from community-based programs and probationto correctional facilities and parole/aftercare. Testimony was receivedstatewide that communities need to be able to deal with their children. Somecommunities appear ready, willing, and able and desire greater resources. Othercommunities do not seem to have the willingness or ability to deal with problemyouth in the community.

2. Testimony was received that there is a need for more parental rights andfor greater parental and local control. At the same time, there was testimonythat parents needed more help and local options than currently exist. Manyparents are seeking that help from state and local agencies. Many parents cannotafford the treatment and counseling needed for youth, and they find that theirchild does not receive help for those problems until the child is well within thejustice system. They are not looking for punishment, but boundaries,supervision, and assistance.

3. Certain communities have difficulty in obtaining employment for youth inthe community due to the desire of the community to rid themselves of problemyouth. This lack of employment restricts the youth's ability to pay restitution.Some communities have successful restitution programs but need more staffresources to expand programs to meet the needs. Specific programs are needed inorder to make restitution work as a sanction.

4. There are expectations by some parents that the state can raise or fix achild when the parents can no longer control the child. There was testimony fromjustice and mental health providers that it is not their job to raise otherpeople's children and that there are not resources to help all of the parents whoneed help.

5. Testimony was received that the victim must be provided the right toparticipate in intervention, sentencing, and disposition discussions for theyouth. The victims need to be kept informed and to be involved in decisionmakingto the extent possible.

6. Communities are finding success with volunteer community sentencing panelsor councils. Billings and Havre have programs, and Great Falls has recentlyinstituted a juvenile sentencing panel.

7. There are youth with no parental support and there is no lever to make themattend school if they are truant. There are no resources for them unless or untilthey commit a crime.

8. Policies that hold the parent accountable for the youth's behavior appearto relieve the youth of accountability. Testimony was received that there aremany parents who do what they are supposed to in terms of treatment, medication,etc., but a youth chooses not to cooperate. Many youth have problems beyond aparent's control.

9. Testimony was received that more attention must be focused on what parentsand youth are doing right and that the justice system must be supportive andreplicate those programs. The Montana Children's Trust Fund Child AbusePrevention Program and Big Brothers and Big Sisters Mentoring Program werementioned as programs that work.

10. The responsibility for determining and collecting parental contribution isconfused and needs to be clearly assigned to an agency or a department. Therecipient of the contribution should be responsible for the determination andcalculation of the amount of parental contribution (i.e., the preadjudicationcosts lie with the District Court and the postadjudication costs lie with thestate, so those entities should be responsible to calculate the amount of costs).

11. The Commission concluded that primary responsibility for discipline of ayouth resides with the youth's parents who have the right to use appropriate andresponsible means.

Youth Issues

1. The staff of the Attorney General's Task Force on Violence providedtestimony that today's youth see violence as inevitable and as a legitimate toolfor solving problems. The staff also testified that a reluctance to divulgeinformation exists for fear of retribution from the person who is involved in thewrongdoing. This reluctance is a community issue and is a behavior shared byadults.

2. In the Commission's first session with teenagers in Missoula, the mostcommon themes from the students' perspectives were: lack of guidance by parentsand teachers; struggling with expectations; and lack of positive involvement byparents, teachers, and law enforcement in the form of awareness, communication,and support. Students need a "good going, you guys" for the majority who are notin trouble. The students wanted adults to talk to and wanted positive guidanceand support; if they don't get it at home or school, they will find it fromfriends, be it good or bad, and from gangs or adults who may influence themnegatively. Students did not like the "us and them type of thing". They wantedadults to treat them with respect and to talk with them about their dreams andaspirations.

Self-esteem is an issue, and the family is seen as the biggest source for self-esteem. Family relations and community must be built up to help build a youth'sself-esteem. Also, schools were mentioned as a site for self-esteem workshopsor at least places where personal attention and individual recognition by ateacher on a regular daily basis could happen.

The students basically said that they are unaware of any consequences forwrongdoing or that the ones they know of are too lenient and that they basicallydo not think of consequences. Some thought that fear is a great motivator, butothers thought that even the fear of going to hell or of God didn't work now sothey didn't know what would. The students basically formulated ideas similar tograduated sanctions that would work with lesser sentences for first-time andsmaller offenses and maximum sentences for repeat offenders and serious offenses. Current penalties are not deterrents now. Restitution can be a good thing, butis sometimes inappropriate or inadequate. The students believed that communityservice was appropriate because students did not like to do it. The fines neededto be sufficiently large to make an impression, and parents should not beresponsible for paying a child's fine. Restitution, such as paying hospitalbills, was mentioned, and it was suggested that students should be required togo to counseling.

Court Issues

1. There are a variety of approaches among the 21 judicial districts as to howthey deal with juvenile justice and child abuse and neglect cases.

2. There needs to be a mechanism between courts within districts, once thelower court's options have been exhausted. Courts should coordinate informationon juveniles (e.g., MIPs may be in City or Justice Court with other proceedingsin Youth Court). This information needs to be shared and coordinated.

3. There need to be greater bands or levels of penalties that providegraduated sanctions for all levels of offenders, but especially status offenders. Sanctions must be immediate and "have teeth".

4. There must be information sharing between Justice Courts and DistrictCourts as the youth often have cases in both courts.

5. There is concern over the length of time it takes to process juvenile casesand concern that the delay dilutes the effectiveness of any disposition. Youthneed immediacy of consequences.

6. Yellowstone County's Youth Conference Committees, Cascade County's JuvenileSentencing Panels and a similar program in Havre, and Bozeman's Court of PeerReview are positive community-based responses to providing immediate consequencesto first-time and second-time offenders and to relieving the courts' burdens ofdealing with the less serious offenders.

7. Testimony was received that there is great interest in peer sentencingpanels.

8. Individual judges and counties are implementing programs within a singlejudicial district to make processing of juveniles more expedient. Judge Johnsonin Cascade County appoints a public defender for the youth if there is noattorney present at the initial hearing and schedules a status conference in twoweeks. Missoula County uses a court screener for MIPs and has instituted afamily-court model for all family proceedings to be handled under a single judge.

9. The MIP statutes were amended in the 1995 Legislative Session to reflectchanges proposed by a Minors in Possession Task Force that worked in conjunctionwith a DUI Task Force. The Department of Justice would like to more clearlyevaluate the effects of the changes from last session before changing thestatutes again.

10. There are problems with the Legislature passing additional laws that areunenforceable. The tobacco laws passed in 1995 are brought up often as anexample. Either they are not enforced at all, or they are used as a method bylaw enforcement to come down hard on kids, while other more serious offenses,such as drug offenses, seem to have no enforceable consequences. The youth pickup on these inconsistencies and mixed messages.

School Issues and Impacts

General Observations

1. School districts experience financial costs and disruption because of youthwith various mental health and medical problems in the school system. Information is not always available about the youth until they show up in aschool district, and it causes great disruption and a need to realign limitedresources. Confidentiality, trust, turf battles, and professional issues preventthe exchange of important data and result in unnecessary costs and strain on theschools. The children and staff need safe environments.

2. Emotionally disturbed and seriously emotionally disturbed youth are beinginappropriately sent to Pine Hills School or returned to and allowed to enter thelocal school systems without prior notice because there is no state facility forthem and there are no sufficient community-based treatment programs.

3. Public hearings indicate that increasing school violence is a statewideproblem and is perceived to be linked to the lack of detention facilities andprograms.

4. In school district policies, "weapons" should be better defined and thereshould be a differentiation between guns and firearms and other weapons.

5. There is potential within welfare reform to develop community serviceprograms within the schools using the community service workers (i.e., crossingguards and playground attendants).

6. Schools need accountability by the parents, the students, and the justicesystem. The Legislature needs to provide resources for the justice system toprovide assistance. Schools cannot be the sole place to provide assistance todelinquents.

Special Needs Youth: Funding and Resources

1. The limited special education funding affects all students by limitingresources for certain groups who then compete for funding within overall budgets.There has been a significant increase in out-of-state placements, which cutsfunding for in-state schools.

2. Conduct-disordered youth and emotionally disturbed youth are not always thesame, and conduct-disordered youth need programs in schools too.

3. Special education costs for special education students placed out of stateby other state agencies are increasing, which in turn decreases the fundingavailable for in-state special education. (Education costs are approximately1/3, for which the Office of Public Instruction is responsible; room and boardcosts are 1/3 and treatment costs are 1/3, for which the placing agency isresponsible.)

4. Elementary schools, as well as middle and high schools, feel the impact ofstudents with emotional disabilities. The numbers of students may not be great,but the resources spent on even one child can be significant.

5. Special education tuition funds that are received for out-of-district youthare not available within the program that receives the child, which causesproblems for some school districts.

6. Funding is needed for public school programs for emotionally disturbed anddelinquent youth. Day treatment is one example of a successful program in somedistricts. Alternative schools are another example of programs that aresuccessful in assisting youth with difficulties. There is one program that hascombined an alternative school and an adolescent treatment program, which couldbe used as a model of a successful program.

Information Sharing and Confidentiality

1. School districts are most concerned with a lack of information sharing fromthe Department of Public Health and Human Services and Youth Court, especiallywhen a child has been discharged from a placement without completing treatment. Schools also need notice of any special needs for a youth for planning purposesprior to the placement of the youth in the community by Department of PublicHealth and Human Services or Youth Court.

2. Confidential information on a student's background is not readily availableto schools, and the delay hinders schools from developing appropriate plans forthe youth and in some cases presents problems or dangers to teachers and otherstudents. State law requires only immunization records to be forwarded. Cumulative files often contain only immunization records and report cards. Information on special education and other kinds of testing needs to be madeavailable to schools. These concerns result in recommendations to includeschools in the Child and Adult Protective Services (CAPS) data base, which hasnumerous financial and confidentiality difficulties.

3. When school personnel participate on various teams involving youth, theappropriate person is not always present. Schools may send administrators orothers who do not have personal knowledge of the youth and the youth's problems.

Alternative Educational Settings

1. Montana law provides that any child who brings a weapon to school isautomatically expelled for a year; there is no place for them to go. If thischild is a special education student, the student must continue to receive aneducation, but there are no sufficient alternative settings that are safe for theteacher and the child.

2. There is a need for safe alternative sites to deliver instruction to youthwho, for one reason or another, cannot attend school in a traditional setting.Suggested daytime educational sites include teleconferencing programs, morealternative schools, or access to secure environments, such as juvenile detentioncenters, therapeutic group homes, group homes, therapeutic treatment centers, orprobation offices.

Truancy

1. When "truancy" statutes fail to bring about changes in behavior, the GreatFalls Police Department charges a parent with endangering the welfare of a child. Truancy laws contained in Title 20 of the Montana Code Annotated are ineffective.

2. The option of "home schooling" may be being abused by some parents or youthwhen the parent cannot control their child or make them attend school. Youthshould be required to be at home during school hours if they are home-schooled.

3. There was testimony that mandatory school attendance should be raised toage 18 and that driving privileges should be based on school attendance. Representatives from the Department of Justice reminded the Commission thatrecordkeeping from the Department's perspective would be difficult and requireadditional full-time employees.

Pine Hills School and Montana Youth Alternatives Program

1. The capacity of Pine Hills School is 85 youth, and it is operating at fullor over capacity. This overcrowding affects the state's detention facilities,and there are concerns regarding discharge policies. Testimony receivedindicated that there is a need for additional housing at Pine Hills. Pine Hillsdoes have open adjacent land that is controlled by the Department of NaturalResources and Conservation (formerly Department of State Lands). Pine Hills hasaddressed many legal issues concerning quality of the facilities. Moreinformation is needed on quality, extent, and effectiveness of the programs atPine Hills.

2. The issue of sex offenders placed at Pine Hills School was raised as wellas the question of whether or not there needs to be a specific treatment programat Pine Hills for sex offenders. When decisions are made regarding the type ofyouth suitable for Pine Hills and for Medicaid funding, labeling of the youth,such as sex offender or conduct disorder, becomes the issue and has not beenresolved.

3. Montana Youth Alternatives is a combination of state-operated and private-contracted services.

4. Emotionally disturbed and seriously emotionally disturbed youth are beinginappropriately sent to Pine Hills School or returned to and allowed to enter thelocal school systems because there is no state facility for them and there areno sufficient community-based treatment programs. If appropriate treatment isfound for them elsewhere, there is no assurance that funding will remainavailable for them and many are returned to Pine Hills on short notice. Theseyouth are subsequently being released from Pine Hills School upon completion oftheir sentences or because of overcrowding, without necessarily having beentreated for their conditions. If Pine Hills is to house these youth, a programfor them should be developed and adequately funded.

5. Testimony and a concern over lack of programming at Pine Hills School washeard from a former student of Pine Hills who is currently a boot camp inmate. He found the programming at the boot camp, with a rigid behavioral code,rehabilitation, and courses that taught how to get along in society, to be abetter opportunity to change his behavior. Another former Pine Hills student andcurrent boot camp inmate testified for the need for more therapy at Pine Hillsand stiffer penalties for first offenses. Both men believed that boot campprovided better programs and role models. Their complaints about Pine Hills inthe past included a lack of intense therapy for criminal thinking, anger, andempathy with victims; a lack of life skills, communication, morals and valuestraining; a lack of role modeling; and a lack of control over juveniles and theirconvict code.

6. Testimony received in April and July of 1996 informed the Commission thatPine Hills School has established length-of-stay guidelines; a year-roundeducational program, including life skills and individualized instruction; avocational-agricultural educational program; a restitution program involvingtraining in victim empathy; and a weapons-check system. The current staff-to-student ratio is 4 to 20 or 3 to 20 depending on the level of security and timeof day or day of the week. Pine Hills is now fenced around the perimeter. TheDepartment of Corrections has a proposal to add 35 beds, including a 20-bed sexoffender program unit.

7. There is concern regarding whether Pine Hills School is the appropriatefacility for juvenile sex offender treatment, both for reasons of being able toattract treatment professionals and in keeping the youth close to family. Thereare suggestions that sex offender treatment be placed in other areas of thestate, especially based on where sex offenders reside and from where they arebeing sentenced, such as the western region of the state. If a program was inthe western region, it would allow for greater family participation in thetreatment for those youth from the western region.

8. In fiscal year 1995, 37 girls were sent out of state to a secure facility. The Department of Corrections proposes to add a 16-bed facility in Montana. TheDepartment of Corrections should consider privatization options, the number ofbeds that should be in state, and the placement of those beds to maximize familyinvolvement.

Prevention and Early Intervention

1. The Department of Justice shared studies of the Drug Abuse ResistanceEducation (DARE) program that have shown that it can be effective. Future fundingis an issue, along with whether funds should come from the state or a community.

2. Delinquency prevention is the most cost-effective approach, but ifpersonnel are always dealing with crisis intervention, there is no time forprevention.

3. Delinquency prevention, early intervention, and juvenile violence mustoccur simultaneously and may be accomplished with different tools and goals.

4. Many people testified that parents needed help earlier on in order to beable to intervene or prevent problems, before the youth was fully involved in theyouth justice system.

5. Testimony was received that the Joint Oversight Committee on Children andFamilies was concentrating on teenage pregnancy and teenage drug and alcoholabuse and focusing on child care and early intervention. The Children andFamilies Committee concluded that by bringing more dollars to the child- careprocess in the form of day-care slots and after-school programs, fewer dollarswill need to be spent on courts, probation, and prison. The funding for prisonsand more detention will be competing with funding for children. Also, savingsfrom the mental health program (MRM) may be taken from the communities wheredollars were saved to go back to state agencies and prisons. These savings mustbe kept in the communities for more prevention and early intervention.

6. The Youth Violence Task Force of the Attorney General's Office isconcentrating on prevention strategies for youth violence in Montana. Its finalreport will be using the Missoula proposal Beyond Violence Towards a HealthyCommunity as a model for cooperation. This proposal was chosen by theInteragency Coordinating Council for Prevention as the pilot project for itsfirst blended-funding project.

Information and Data Problems

1. There is no integrated system for the Youth Courts, state agencies, andschool systems to coordinate and share information. Problems are thatinformation is either not gathered and not accessible or that there are frequentchanges in the types of information requested. The new CAPS system should be astart toward a solution, although the juvenile probation officers' part of thesystem needs to be funded in order to be fully operational on the system and theschools need to have a way to access information. Schools especially need to beinformed of the type of youth being placed in the community (i.e., specialeducation, behavioral problems, or mental illness) if the placement is by a stateagency in a group home, residential care, etc. There are statutory andadministrative provisions that allow some information sharing, but they may needto be made clearer and additions may be necessary.

2. Representatives from the Department of Public Health and Human Services,the Board of Crime Control's Youth Justice Advisory Council, and the State CourtAdministrator's Office have failed to coordinate data collection and systems. There appears to be misunderstanding and a lack of communication about thedirection each system is taking and the need for

"IT TAKES A FAMILY, SCHOOL, COMMUNITY . . ."

Table of Contents

SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF

PUBLISHED BY:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PREFACE