|
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT REPORTS Objective Decisionmaking Workgroup REPRESENTATION F ields represented by membership in this group were juvenile justice, educators, law enforcement, and mental health.FUNCTION T he role of the objective decisionmaking workgroup was to map the current juvenile justice system to identify the critical decision points and document the current decisionmaking processes (objective, multidisciplinary teams, subjective recommendations, staff expertise, etc.) used at each decision point. The workgroup identified who makes the decisions/ recommendations and what data are collected and used at each decision point, with particular attention to duplication in data collection, variations in definitions of terms, and time required to complete each process. This is not an inventory of the programs or options, but of the processes by which youth are placed or moved through the system. While the current decision- making points are not related to the use of a tool (i.e. assessment tool), this process will be aided by the implementation of the Uniform Risk Assessment Tool.The critical decision points identified by the Objective Decisionmaking Group are: the commission of an offense, custody options, intake options, adjudicatory hearing, and dispositional review (see Flowchart Appendix 5). PROCESS Using their collective experience and knowledge, the group began reviewing the juvenile system in Baker County by first consulting with the judge, the district attorney, law enforcement, and the juvenile department director. This gave the group the basis from which their work began. The consultation process was followed by a self-analysis of the juvenile department. In particular, the group analyzed the smoothness of the system from start to finish, and how quickly the process moved. One question they asked was if decisions were being made objectively. Based on their review, the group designed a flowchart of how the system works in Baker County (see Appendix 5). This flowchart encompasses decision points that occur in the system once a juvenile has committed an offense. GAPS T he discoveries made by the group indicate that the initial contacts (police contacts and decisions) and the subsequent decision points concerning referral are satisfactory and sound. This determination was made based on the past record of law enforcement regarding decision-making points. They have proven their effectiveness in the decisionmaking process and have historically met the needs and expectations of the juvenile department. Within the system, however, there are noticeable gaps. Some are a matter of the rural location in which Baker County sits, and some are a result of limitations that exist because of a lack of providers or a physical structure. The specific gaps identified are:
Many of these gaps are currently being addressed on some level within the County, such as the plans for short-term secure hold facility in Baker County. Others can be addressed within the department, and still others can be addressed within the community by existing or new programs. One area of concern for the Objective Decisionmaking Workgroup is that public budgets are being cut or threatened in social service or departmental areas that most affect high-risk youth and families. Budget cuts could cause serious gaps in service provision to at-risk and delinquent youth. RECOMMENDATIONS One of the most noticeable needs within Baker County are programs for first-time or status offenders. The first recommendation the group makes is the improvement of both access and availability to diversion programs for this category of offenders within the county. This could include mediation, mentoring, anger management classes, and shelter care housing.
The Oregon Juvenile Department Director’s Association (OJDDA) has developed a Uniform Risk Assessment Tool for juvenile offenders, which they recommend for use. The Baker County Juvenile Department identified partners who would be most likely to use this tool. The Juvenile Department has adopted this tool, and training of partners began on July 1, 2000. These partners include Baker County schools and program providers for at-risk youth. It is the goal of the Baker County Juvenile Department that implementation of this valuable tool by all partners be complete no later than December 31, 2000. Addressing the existing time span between referral and juvenile counselor contact, and between filing of petitions and adjudication will require an internal change of scheduling priorities within the Juvenile Department. The shortening of these time periods will ultimately improve the services provided by the Department.
Accountability is a key piece in the process. Obviously, it is imperative that the offending youth be held accountable, for example, through community service, restitution, and fee payment. Another area of importance in this realm is that of parental accountability. If properly used, parental accountability statutes may increase compliance. Additionally, juvenile counselors and judges should be held accountable for acting efficiently and in the best interest of the juvenile, the family, the system, and the community. In regard to court docket times, specific times need to be blocked out for the purposes of shelter care and permanency hearings. The Juvenile Department needs regular prioritized blocks of time of 1 –2 hours per week in order for reviews and other cases as well. To address the concerns over budget cuts, the workgroup suggests a regularly seated educated board or committee working in close cooperation with decision makers (i.e. budget officers) prior to the budget hearings and process. This board or committee, through regular contact with budget and department heads, could connect the need to preserve budgets for at-risk families back to State and local benchmarks. The Baker County Juvenile Department has worked toward implementing gender-specific policies and training. National research shows that approximately 25% to 33% of runaway girls (Girls Inc., 1997) are running away to escape abuse in the home, and 45% who commit Larceny-Theft (Snell and Morton, 1994) have been victims of sexual or physical assault. Baker County is consistent with national numbers in that the two highest rates of arrest for female delinquents are Runaway and Larceny-Theft (L.E.D.S., 1998). Currently, there is no method by which offenders who are also victims are formally identified or tracked. With proper use of the Uniform Assessment Tool, victims of physical and/or sexual assault in their home will hopefully be identified. However, the question of acknowledging the assault on the juvenile justice information system (JJIS) remains. At present, founded cases of victimization are shown in the "Notes" section of JJIS, although it is not policy. Unfounded cases are not identified. Therefore, if a young offender changes caseworkers, or if the family relocates, there is no record of allegations of abuse. In light of existing research, it is recommended that the Baker County Juvenile Department implement a policy requiring utilization of the "Notes" section to record any statement of sexual or physical assault or neglect against a juvenile delinquent, clearly noting declarations of abuse or threat of abuse. Because of the importance of caseworkers having knowledge of previous reports, this recommendation includes both founded and unfounded allegations of assault. This simple policy change could assist caseworkers in identifying delinquent girls who are also victims, improve the data collection process, improve services to victimized offenders, and give planners a better picture of the victimization-to-offender rate of female juvenile delinquents in Baker County. |