The information below is an archived report from June 2004. For current iinformation on juvenile justice in Louisiana, please consult the the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana and Friends and Families of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children.

Juvenile Justice Report

June 2, 2004

MODEL FOR REFORM

Significant efforts have been made in recent years toward reforming Louisiana's antiquated, ineffective and often abusive approach to the housing and handling of juvenile offenders. A federal lawsuit filed in 1998 by the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana and the U.S. Department of Justice, and still pending in court, has produced some incremental changes and drawn attention to the problems. The leadership of Cravins and Landrieu and others in the state legislature as well as state government has been the "engine” that brought us to the doorstep of reform.

But the "spark plug” for last year's increase in momentum toward real juvenile justice reform in Louisiana was provided by an introduction to the system used in the State of Missouri. Missouri's juvenile justice system, recognized across the nation as a model for low recidivism rates and successful outcomes for youthful offenders, relies on small facilities and intensive group counseling. Operating on the premise that kids are much more significantly influenced by peer pressure than they are by adult direction or even punishment, the Missouri model creates peer groups of juvenile offenders that gradually assume responsibility for the behavior of each member in the group. There are professional case managers, group therapy, family counseling, and transition services for all kids coming out of secure care. But the platform that allows all of this to work effectively is small groups with no more than twelve kids in each group.

The Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation's Strategic Consulting Group provided the resources for dozens of Louisiana's legislators and policymakers, advocates and judges, sheriffs and district attorneys, parents and community activists to visit Missouri and see how their system works. The result was a strong cadre of Louisiana leaders eager to replicate what they saw. Throughout the legislative debate and the ensuing meetings toward implementation plans for Act 1225, the Missouri system was consistently referenced as the model that our state would follow.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS

Beyond closing one juvenile prison, Act 1225 requires a plan for transitioning youth out of Tallulah as well as ongoing and periodic review of every juvenile in OYD custody to assure that each one is in a setting most likely to provide the supports and guidance he or she needs to get back on the right track, while simultaneously ensuring public safety. The transition plans, the development of assessments for the youth in the system, and the design of supports and services generally have been considered the domain in which the Casey Group and the Missouri experts would have a major role, once implementation began.

The legislation also requires that monies saved through the reduction and ultimate closure of Tallulah be used for community-based treatment and rehabilitation programs, operating under contracts with OYD, as well as ancillary supports and services indicated by the assessments. In fact, the Governor's budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1st allocates about $132 million for contract services in OYD, an increase of about 2.2% ($2.4 million) over the current year's budget, much less than the amount needed to fund the 255 additional community placements announced in the Governor's recent press release. While the increase in community-based capacity is welcome news, the discrepancy in the figures points out the difficulty of monitoring the budget and expenditure process, especially given the continuing connection between OYD and adult corrections.

Act 1225 also calls for the creation of a single state entity for the provision of services to children and families, to incorporate functions of other existing departments providing such services, as well as the Office of Youth Development. Conversations have focused on creating a new department in state government for this purpose, and Senate Bill 621 was filed in the current legislative session to do it. However, the state is constitutionally prohibited from having more than twenty departments, a limit already reached, so the bill — which already faces the hurdle posed by an uncertain fiscal note — would have to pass an additional vote at the polls in November to become law, even if it does meet with legislative approval.

Given that the success of the juvenile justice reform work requires separating OYD from the culture, management, and budgetary authority of the adult corrections administration, an interim strategy was needed. Within a month of her inauguration, Governor Blanco moved to use her authority to establish a "firewall” in the Department of Corrections to allow OYD to function independently. Subsequently, in her first bill-signing, she approved Act 1276 of the 2004 Legislature to institutionalize the separation.

It is still, however, a temporary solution. The Office of Youth Development should be integrally connected to other supports and services for struggling families, vulnerable children, and troubled youth — not acting as a stand-alone entity subject to the residual influences of the department in which it is still housed, firewall notwithstanding. An argument could be made for dismantling and then re-constructing the existing Louisiana Department of Social Services (DSS) toward this purpose. DSS currently houses the Office of Family Support (OFS), which includes child care assistance, food stamps, cash assistance and other family supports and services. The Office of Community Services (OCS), also part of DSS, is responsible for abused and neglected children, a population which unfortunately overlaps considerably over time with the population comprised of juvenile offenders.

During the past year DSS has been developing plans to implement the "No Wrong Door” legislation enacted in 2003. Focused on coordinating services, ensuring single points of entry throughout the department, and eliminating the "silo” syndrome, this new approach promises to connect families with the assistance they need to meet multiple challenges instead of leaving it to the families to try to make the various connections themselves. Placing OYD in this mix could enhance the capacities of families with kids in the juvenile justice system to be effective partners in the treatment and rehabilitation process.

BUMP IN THE ROAD

The Casey Foundation's Strategic Consulting Group has been present throughout the discussions held over the past eighteen months in the legislature, the previous and present Governors' offices, and the Juvenile Justice oversight and planning entities created by Act 1225 — the Implementation Commission and the Planning Board. There appeared to be a consensus that the Casey Group was the key to the Missouri model and the Missouri model was what was needed here.

Casey's longstanding offer of help incorporates and pays for the assistance of the Missouri experts. The plan includes assessing the youth in the system, analyzing the assessment results to determine the most appropriate placement for each young person, developing case plans and training the OYD staff to carry them out, identifying resources and gaps, and designing an institutional structure to sustain the effort. It would begin on a small scale and eventually include kids in all three remaining secure incarceration facilities, as well as those in community-based settings across the state. "In six months, said Joe Liu, the Casey Group's point person in Louisiana, "we will begin to see the indicators of success.”

Although small peer groups of youth would be integral to the treatment and rehabilitation process, Liu neither anticipates a heavy clinical approach, nor any major architectural changes or capital expense. "We focus on working with the families,” he says. "Parents and supportive communities can often provide the supervision and direction their kids need, especially given access to supportive services and helping professionals.”

At the May 17th meeting of the Juvenile Justice Implementation Commission (JJIC) the consensus seemed to be at risk of unraveling. As Liu laid out plans for beginning the reform efforts, the state appeared to balk. Simon Gonsoulin, recently appointed Interim Assistant Secretary for OYD, reported that his office would be implementing an "integrated treatment model” using OYD internal staff, LSU, and consultation from juvenile justice officials in the State of Washington — a new name on the table. While Gonsoulin appeared to be receptive to Casey's assistance with designing community-based programs, he seemed less interested in allowing Casey to look at kids throughout the system — including about 700 kids remaining in secure facilities — although there is clearly a great deal of fluidity between the two settings. Commissioners, including Lieutenant Governor Landrieu and state Supreme Court Justice Kitty Kimball, expressed surprise at this turn of events. Liu indicated that the Casey Group will only go forward if OYD wants to engage them in designing reform measures that include all the kids in the system, including roughly 1,000 in contract group homes as well as the 700 in secure care.

PERHAPS IT'S THAT ELEPHANT

The 1998 lawsuit is perhaps the elephant sitting on the table. Filed by the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL) and the US Department of Justice, the suit charges the State with chronic abuse and mistreatment of incarcerated juveniles. A settlement agreement was established in 2000, re-visited in 2003, and re-negotiated in 2004, requiring a plan to eliminate abuse, assign case workers to facilitate treatment and rehabilitation plans, and put other measures in place to ensure safety and promote good outcomes for the kids in the secure detention facilities.

"Project Zero Tolerance” (PZT) is a component of the agreement that focuses on ending the abuse of kids by guards. According to David Utter, JJPL Director, the way in which PZT has been handled — assigning Department of Corrections employees to police the behavior of their peers — is indicative of the lack of earnestness that has characterized the state's approach to complying with the settlement agreement.

On May 19th, two days after the disagreement emerged in the JJIC meeting, Governor Blanco indicated her position in the following statement: "As we move toward a Missouri modeled community-based system, we are extremely interested in reviewing the (Casey) Foundation's package of consulting services to help us in that regard.” She then went on to say, "we are hopeful that we will be able to gain dismissal from the federal litigation by the end of the year.”

David Utter would agree that it has gone on long enough. "The Governor could come to the Department of Justice and JJPL and acknowledge that what we agreed to in 2000, and then renewed in 2003 and again in 2004, isn't working,” says Utter. "We have this great offer from the Annie E. Casey Foundation to help us move Louisiana to a juvenile justice system that works like the one in Missouri, which has a proven record of success, evidenced by a recidivism rate of 5 to 10%. Compare that to a rate of about 70% in Louisiana. We're spending several hundred thousand dollars on consultants trying to make the facilities safe so we can get out of the lawsuit. But we can get free help (from Casey) to make the system work! It's a no-brainer.”

The fact that there were over 130 incidents of abuse or attack in two of the four juvenile prisons during the month of February 2004 would seem to support Utter's claim that the current efforts are not working.

The lawsuit is not a major factor for the Casey Group. "The expectations are low,” says Liu. "Certainly we agree that the basic safety and security of the kids has to be ensured, and that's what lawsuits are set up to do, but it's not material to the discussion we're having about creating a system in Louisiana that stands with other successful models in the nation.”

MOVING FORWARD

The relationships have not ended. The conversation is not over. Governor Blanco was the first in last year's field of gubernatorial candidates to endorse the juvenile justice reform platform developed by JJPL and partners, and she has already shown clear evidence of acting in accordance with the commitments she made. Suzy Sonnier, Executive Director of the Governor's Children's Cabinet and the Juvenile Justice Implementation Commission, says, "I think we're all going to be on track and we're going to get there because we have the same vision.”

Joe Liu says the Casey Group needs to be sure that their goals are aligned with those of OYD and the Blanco administration.

Given that the Missouri model has been the plan on the table for the last eighteen months of discussion, OYD should proceed in that direction or publicly offer clear and compelling reasons for changing gears.

The establishment of a single state entity for the provision of services to children, youth, and families — including OYD — deserves prompt attention. Consideration should be given to using the slot currently occupied by DSS to create the new department.

Putting the lawsuit behind us is a priority for everybody, but there may be no short-cuts, and there does not appear to be a logical rationale for stalling reform efforts in the meantime.

There are 1,700 children — and their families and communities — depending on us to come up with wise decisions and sound plans that offer them opportunities to thrive. That's what all this is about.