THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The Joint Committee on

Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review

Report # 506

Juvenile Justice in Mississippi: Status of the System and a Strategy for Change

Executive Summary

Conclusions

PEER compared Mississippi’s juvenile justice system to a comprehensive juvenile justice system, elements of which were identified by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and PEER’s review of the literature on juvenile justice. PEER made this comparison by conducting interviews with the key players at all levels of the state’s juvenile justice system, as well as by reviewing documentation provided by the key players.

PEER found that Mississippi’s fragmented juvenile justice system does not equitably provide an adequate continuum of treatment and rehabilitative alternatives, from prevention to transition. The system does not effectively identify and meet the needs of all juveniles in every county because of deficiencies in screening and assessment, case management, wraparound programs and services, and does not always address the equitable treatment of youth. The system’s deficiencies in funding, planning, research and evaluation capacity, and qualified personnel also limit its effectiveness.

PEER proposes two policy options and eight recommendations as a strategy for changing the state’s juvenile justice system to meet the needs of all juveniles statewide.

Policy Options for Organizational Change

To improve the current system and work toward achieving a more comprehensive juvenile justice system in Mississippi, the Legislature should consider the possibilities inherent in two options.

The first, Option One, is a more conservative approach that acknowledges the overarching need for a comprehensive research and evaluation capacity to establish the foundations for more effective service structures for the state. Option One continues existing service structures until the needed research is in place to guide implementation of change.

Option Two is a more aggressive approach in that, while recognizing the critical need for an improved research base, also recognizes that there is sufficient evidence of the limitations of Mississippi’s current fragmented juvenile justice system to guide the immediate creation of a centralized service agency.

The following summarizes the two options for approaching reform:

• Option One: Create the Institute of Juvenile Justice Research
  
  Create a centralized and comprehensive research and evaluation capacity within the current juvenile justice system to be known as the Institute of Juvenile Justice Research to identify the resources necessary to build a comprehensive and effective system at an annual estimated state cost of $950,200, consisting of existing costs of $197,937 and estimated new costs of $752,263; or,
• Option Two: Create the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
  
  Create a state Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention by moving existing system components into a centralized agency, as well as creating the research and evaluation capacity (mentioned in the first option) as one component within this department at an annual estimated state cost of $45,050,661, consisting of existing costs of $43,227,110 and estimated new costs of $1,823,551.

Table A below shows total estimated costs for both options, including new and existing expenditures.

1 Source of estimated new expenses would be state general funds.
2 Excluding initial estimated one-time start-up costs to furnish office space.

SOURCE: Summary of PEER analysis regarding estimated annual expenditures and Fiscal Year 2007 actual expenditures.

The options have at least two common elements. The first common element is that both of the options would involve creation of a research and evaluation capacity dedicated to juvenile justice within the state. This research and evaluation component would utilize a uniform screening instrument in assessing all juvenile offenders to determine the programs and services best suited to their needs.

The second common element of the options is that both would increase costs beyond current state expenditures for juvenile justice due to the creation of the above-described research and evaluation capacity, the development of new programs and services to meet the needs identified through the assessments and analysis of data, and resulting staffing and administrative costs. Table B below compares the estimated expenditures for the two options by major objects of expenditure, showing the estimated amounts of new and existing expenditures in each major object category.

The primary difference between the two options is that the first seeks to address service needs through existing organizational structures, while the second option seeks to reduce organizational fragmentation through a newly created department focusing on juvenile justice issues.

The following sections summarize each of these options and their respective strengths and weaknesses.

1 Source of estimated new expenses would be state general funds.
2 Existing expenditures for the four DPS staff were only available regarding Personal Services - Salary and Fringes.
3 Contractual Services for the IJJR include an estimated cost of $94,605 for rental of office space. See pages 107 and 120-121 of the full report for an explanation of the projection for office space.
4 Capital Outlay- Equipment does not include one-time estimated costs to furnish office space. See pages 107 and 120-121 of the full report for an explanation of the projection for office space.
5 Contractual Services for the DJJDP include an estimated cost of $155,820 for rental of office space.
6 Total does not include Subsidies, Loans, and Grants expenditures, which are non-operational “flow-through” funds.

SOURCE: PEER analysis of estimated annual expenditures and Fiscal Year 2007 actual expenditures.

Option One: Creation of the Institute of Juvenile Justice Research within the State’s Existing System

The Legislature could choose to create the Institute of Juvenile Justice Research (IJJR) to be housed within the Department of Public Safety.

The primary purpose of the IJJR would be to satisfy one of the state requirements in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 that provides for the development of an adequate research, training, and evaluation capacity within the state, which is currently not being fulfilled within the Department of Public Safety. The research conducted by the IJJR would provide the necessary information to address deficiencies in the continuum of treatment and rehabilitative alternatives in the state by providing sufficient and consistent service delivery and planning through evidence-based research and evaluation.

Option One (creating the IJJR) is an approach for reorganization and structure of the state’s juvenile justice system that works within the existing system with minimal changes to the overall structure itself, while collecting and analyzing the necessary data to identify and analyze the juvenile justice needs and resources of the state. The IJJR would have the ability to utilize evidence-based research to develop strategic plans for equitable service delivery and associated state funding structures necessary to move toward a comprehensive continuum of treatment and rehabilitative alternatives.

The primary weakness of the IJJR is that it would not provide direct accountability for the service structure in the system as a whole and would still rely on the existing key players to implement programs and services within the existing organizational structure.

Pages 96 through 107 of the full report contain details on proposed responsibilities, needed legislative action, a timeline, potential organizational structure (including organization chart), and a breakdown of estimated costs for implementation of Option One (creating the IJJR).

Option Two: Creation of an Independent Board of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to Direct a Separate Department

The Legislature could choose to create an independent Board of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and to move components and resources from the existing system into a centralized department that would be directed by the board.

The primary purposes of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) would be: promote public safety; hold youth accountable for their actions; prevent offending and re-offending through competency development of youth; and equitably provide the full range of the continuum of treatment and rehabilitative alternatives. The DJJDP would be developed to maximize current resources and would absorb the current agencies and divisions providing services to at-risk youth and juvenile offenders within Mississippi. The DJJDP would then be able to provide a uniform state-level structure in order to improve the programs and services provided and influence the entire spectrum of the juvenile justice system, while also gaining the ability to develop long-term goals of the overall system specifically focused on juvenile justice.

The primary strength of Option Two (creating a DJJDP) would be that it would provide direct accountability to the juvenile justice system as a whole by having one centralized authority with direct control over the primary state-level programs, services, and resources of the system. This new department would combine existing key players at the state level and maximize current resources to align the primary state entities that currently provide programs and services to juveniles within one department, allowing for more consistent planning, collaboration and coordination of resources, targeted mission and vision statements, and long-term planning of the juvenile justice system in its entirety, not limited to independent components.

The DJJDP would have a greater potential than Option One for incurring increased state costs for additional staffing requirements, office space, and other overhead expenses necessary in the start-up of a new department.

Pages 108 through 122 of the full report contain details on proposed responsibilities, needed legislative action, a timeline, potential organizational structure (including organization chart), and a breakdown of estimated costs for implementation of Option Two (creating the DJJDP).

Recommendations Independent of Policy Options

If the Legislature chooses to implement Option One for organizational change or take no action on either option, Recommendation 1 below stands as presented. If the Legislature chooses to implement Option Two, the redirection of TANF funds noted in Recommendation 1 below would be from the Office of the Attorney General to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention instead of the Division of Youth Services.

1. While the PEER Committee is aware that the Attorney General and the Governor are litigating the constitutional issues related to the Governor’s veto of an appropriation of TANF funds to the Office of the Attorney General for the support of programs for “at-risk” youth, as a matter of public policy, in future fiscal years, the Legislature could consider redirecting these funds to the Division of Youth Services.
   
   The redirection of these funds to DYS would improve the coordination of juvenile justice programs in Mississippi and ensure that program providers compete to provide the highest-quality programs for the least cost. The Legislature would require the Division of Youth Services to continue to use such funds for adolescent offender programs (AOPs) and other community-based prevention programs such as those currently administered by the YMCA, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and Big Brothers Big Sisters to meet the needs of juvenile offenders or those at risk of becoming juvenile offenders. This would include a requirement that DYS spend one-fourth of the appropriated TANF funds on the creation and maintenance of adolescent offender programs and three-fourths of the appropriated TANF funds on the creation and maintenance of community-based prevention programs. The administration of these funds would be handled in accordance with TANF regulations and state procurement regulations, including the requirement that they be awarded through a competitive process.
   
   As the entity responsible for administering the laws and policies relating to youth services and as the entity responsible for ensuring that adolescent offender programs provide services to youth in each county by 2010, the Division of Youth Services would be the entity that determines where AOPs would be located based on statewide juvenile justice needs. Additionally, redirecting TANF funds would allow the state advisory group, the Division of Youth Services, and the entity responsible for the administration of the JJDPA to assess the needs of the Mississippi juvenile justice system and incorporate delinquency prevention goals and priorities into the system.
   
   PEER does not question the effectiveness of programs provided by the Attorney General, but the successful administration of the current juvenile justice system is hindered by the presence of multiple agencies in the decision-making process. In order to prevent disruption of programs currently funded with TANF through the Office of the Attorney General, the Legislature would require the Division of Youth Services and the Office of the Attorney General to develop and implement a joint plan for the transition of these TANF funds to DYS by FY 2009. The Legislature would require oversight of the administration of such plan by the juvenile justice State Advisory Group. This plan would include, at a minimum:
   
   
   • removal of the Office of the Attorney General from the administration of TANF funds for programs for “at-risk” youth by FY 2009; and,
   • a requirement that DYS issue requests for proposal for all adolescent offender program services and delinquency prevention program services beginning with the distribution of FY 2010 funds. The current request for proposals that DYS utilizes for its adolescent offender programs and a separate request for proposals for prevention programs would include the following provisions to ensure that those entities selected as providers are those that could most effectively and efficiently administer the AOPs and prevention programs:
     
     
     • Needs assessment--A formal needs assessment would be used to determine what tasks and services are needed, including a clear definition of the need to be addressed, estimated resources needed to address the problem, and a description of deficiencies of resources relative to addressing the problem.
     • Systematic review of proposals--In order to ensure selection of the lowest and best bidder for a contract, DYS would clearly establish the criteria on which the bidders would be judged, assign possible point values to each criteria, and train the proposal evaluators as to how to assign points objectively based on documentation provided by the bidder in the proposal. The Division of Youth Services would also be required to include a provision for competitive priority for current service providers. The RFP would include a Previous Program Performance Statement that would allow entities that received funding in the previous year to request competitive priority consideration for funding for the upcoming year. This would allow bonus points to be awarded to bidders based on a review of performance measures, program activities, and program initiatives.
     • Contract monitoring and evaluation--Outputs and outcomes for adolescent offender programs and delinquency prevention programs would be established in order to measure program performance. Contract monitoring would provide opportunity for the agency to measure the contractor’s performance level and adherence to contract terms. Evaluation at the end of the contract would assess the contractor’s performance in meeting the agency’s expectations and contractual terms. Evaluation is important for either future selection of or termination of a contractor.
   
   By removing the Attorney General from the administration of programs for “at-risk” youth, decision-making for community-based programs could be centralized to ensure that the needs of the state’s juvenile offenders and those at risk of becoming juvenile offenders are met. Additionally, the inclusion of the above provisions in the RFP process for AOPs and delinquency prevention programs would allow for continued funding of currently effective and efficient providers of services.
2. The Governor would appoint a representative from the Department of Education to the State Advisory Group to enhance its capability in identifying the juvenile justice needs of the state and establishing programs and services to best suit juveniles in the state.
3. In order to determine the effectiveness of community-based programs and institutional programs, the Division of Youth Services would develop and implement standard performance measures, including at a minimum:
   
   
   • output and outcome measures by program;
   • requirement that standard performance measures be used by any entity that provides programs or services in conjunction with or funded through DYS; and,
   • creation of an audit system that includes a financial and a performance audit of programs on an annual basis.
4. The Division of Youth Services would continue the development of its YASI-based statewide classification system to determine youth placement options based on the youth’s levels of risk and need in order to provide the continuum of treatment and rehabilitation in the least restrictive setting possible.
   
   The division’s staff would also meet with youth court judges and personnel to receive input and review the strengths and weaknesses of this classification system. Initially, the system would classify those youth who are not being served in the appropriate settings, so that immediate efforts may be taken to identify other placement options. The long-term goals of this classification system would be to provide the necessary data regarding the service delivery requirements of juveniles in the state and to utilize this data to create a strategic statewide service delivery structure. Once a uniform service delivery structure has been established and implemented, the DYS and the youth courts, could then determine the viability of developing uniform sentencing guidelines for juveniles. This system would be evaluated and revised as needed on an annual basis. Upon completion of this system, the Legislature would mandate its use by all programs administered and organized by the Division of Youth Services and the youth courts by July 1, 2009.
5. A uniform youth court system would be established through the implementation of a statewide county court system with exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles in the state in order to reduce the disparities of services, programs, staffing, and data collection found in the current structure. The Legislature would mandate counties to fund these courts, and in counties where it is not feasible to have a single county court, then a regional county court would be established, with each county contributing to the regional court. Additionally, the counties would be granted the authority to levy taxes if necessary to obtain the funding for this uniform court system.
6. The purpose clause of youth courts in Mississippi statute would be updated to replace the language from the Standard Juvenile Court Act of 1959 to language promoting the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model. At the very least, the Mississippi statute would be modified to include the three primary focus areas of the BARJ model, which include public safety, accountability, and competency development, in addition to the Standard Court Act language. Incorporation of the BARJ model would better facilitate the court’s focus on a continuum of treatment and rehabilitative alternatives through prevention and graduated sanctions.
7. Similar to Senate Bill 2818, 2007 Regular Session, which established uniform educational services among detention centers, the Legislature should mandate all county courts to utilize the AOC MYCIDS database and provide the necessary funding for hardware and technical support. In addition, upon completion of the interface with the DYS CMS database, all DYS and youth court staff would have access to a central registry of juvenile offender data that could be tracked at the individual level, allowing for more detailed information to be collected and used in the DYS Annual Report and the Three-Year Comprehensive Plan.
8. The statewide entity responsible for juvenile justice planning in Mississippi should study the feasibility of charging the parents of a juvenile offender if their child is housed in a state-operated secure care institution for more than twenty-four hours. As an example, in Utah, in this situation the parents are charged a child support payment to the state, with the amount based on the parents’ annual income. In instances in which the annual income is not sufficient, the state requires no payment. If this requirement were implemented in Mississippi, the funds collected could be used to supplement funding for community-based programs.

PEER Home Page         Full Text PDF (10,263K)