To

Governarjim Doyle and

Secretary Rick Ra amisch

June 2010

 

 

 

 

 er {Go
Greg Lewis, Co-Chair
St. Gabriel?s Church

Milwaukee

Jim Moeser, Co-Chair
Wisconsin Council on Children and Families

Madison

Bishop Charles McClelland
Word of Hope Ministries

Milwaukee

Lori Vance
Express Yourself Milwaukee

Milwaukee

John Burmaster
Retired Educator

Gleason

John Solberg
Rawhide Boy?s Ranch

New London

 .i'r?araseas

Mark Mertens

Outagamie County Health and Human
Services Department

Appleton

Judge Glenn Yamahiro
Milwaukee Circuit Court

Milwaukee

Judge Mary Triggiano
Milwaukee Circuit Court

Milwaukee

Judge Neal Nielsen
Vilas County Circuit Court

Eagle River

Judge Wendell Askenette
Menominee Tribal Court

Keshena

Note: Members were appointed as citizens, not
as representatives of their specific
organization affiliations)

 

 

Due to a steady decline in the number of youth placed with the Division of Juvenile Corrections for
placement in a secure Juvenile Correctional Institution (J CI) over the past decade, the department
has been exploring options related to whether or not the currentconfiguration of CIs should be
maintained, and if not what options may exist for consolidating programs.

In April, the Governor appointed a committee of citizens with varied expertise and perspectives on
juvenile justice and youth issues to provide an independent review of Cl operations, focusing
primarily on the two male juvenile institutions (Ethan Allen School and Lincoln Hills School), and
provide recommendations regarding the best correctional environment for delinquent youth which
will enable them to learn, grow, and change their behavior for successful community reintegration.
The committee met seven times between April 19 and June 21. This included five full-day meetings,
touring both facilities, receiving and reviewing dozens of documents, and hearing testimony from a
number of key juvenile justice system partners.

Based on the observations of the committee, the following recommendations are made to the
Governor and Department of Corrections Secretary:

1. The committee believes that it is not fiscally or programmatically feasible to continue to operate
two male juvenile correctional institutions and that the department should proceed with
consolidation of Ethan Allen and Lincoln Hills as a first step toward significant system change.
The committee does not make a formal recommendation as to which CI should be closed (see
Discussion under Options Considered and Voting Process).

2. The committee recommends that the department appoint an advisory group to assist with
transition/consolidation efforts if/when they occur. This committee may be made up of parents,
county staff, service providers, members of the faith community, youth advocates, or others who
have a stake in the success of the transition. The immediate purpose of the advisory group is to
assist the department in making a transition that maintains the high quality of existing
programs and supports communications with critical stakeholders.

3. The committee recommends that following the transition/consolidation attention be turned to a
collaborative process with counties to revisit opportunities for continued improvements in the
juvenile justice system including improvements in the Youth Aids funding system and
potentially suggesting alternative funding options.

4. The committee recommends that additional fiscal measures be taken to lower or slow the rate of
growth in the daily rate(s), including: (1) utilizing funds from general school aids to pay an
appropriate share of the school costs at the institutions, (2) funds generated through
participation in the federally supported school breakfast/lunch program be applied as revenue to
the division, and (3) appropriate fixed operational costs utilities and maintenance costs) be
supported by general program revenue rather than being included in the daily rate(s).

5. The Committee commends DJ Administrator Margaret Carpenter for the changes that have
been made over the last 18-20 months in the division and makes a recommendation that
Margaret Carpenter be retained as DJ Administrator in the next administration.

 

June 2010

 

 

NATURE OF THE CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

On April 8, Governor Doyle appointed a statewide committee to determine how Wisconsin?s
Department of Corrections Division of Juvenile Corrections should respond to an over decade-long
drop in juvenile crime. Along with a decline of the male juvenile arrest rate of 22 percent since 2001,
the average daily population of youth placed in the state juvenile correctional institutions had
declined more than 35 percent.

The 11-member committee is comprised of a diverse group of citizens and professionals involved in
working with youthful offenders. The stated goal of the committee is to formulate a committee
recommendation for the Governor regarding the best correctional environment for delinquent youth
which will enable them to learn, grow, and change their behavior for successful community
reintegration. The committee was tasked to look at the operations of both male juvenile correctional
institutions (Ethan Allen School - EAS, Lincoln Hills School - LHS) and explore how best to serve
juvenile offenders in the future while reducing costs, including possible consolidation of the
institutions and/or programming.

SUMMARY OF THE COMMITTEE PROCESS

Following appointment of the committee, the first meeting was held on April 19, and an ambitious
schedule of subsequent meetings was established to provide committee members with the
information needed to thoughtfully complete the task assigned. At the meeting on April 19, the
committee was provided with a range of basic information about the operations of the two
institutions, established an initial schedule of additional meetings, and selected co-chairs for the
group. The co-chairs were Greg Lewis from St. Gabriel?s Church in Milwaukee and Jim Moeser from
the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families.

Following that first meeting, five full?day (April 29, May 7, May 14, May 21, June 2) and one half?
day (June 21) meetings were scheduled and held. Not all committee members were able to attend all
meetings in person, but several members were able to participate by telephone at various meetings.
Members received a structured tour of both EAS (April 29) and LHS (May 7), and members who
were unable to participate on those group tours were offered/provided the opportunity for a private
tour. At meetings on May 14 and 21, the committee received input from a number of system
partners and professionals, including:

a Marty Beil and Susan McMurray, AFSCME

a Mary Belle and Mike Senn, WEAC

Lance Horozewski, Office of Justice Assistance

6 Kathy Malone, Justice Solutions, LLC

a Gerald Huber, La Crosse Countyl-luman Services

9 Sarah Diedrick-Kasdorf, Wisconsin Counties Association

6 Larry Winter, Chippewa County Human Services

6 Peggy West, Milwaukee County Board Health and Human Needs Committee

6 Eric Meaux, Milwaukee County Delinquency and Court Services

- a DeWayne Street, Department of Corrections/Adult Institutions Education Director

June 2010 3 

 

 

Staff from the Division of Juvenile Corrections attended all meetings and prepared/provided written
and verbal information to the committee on a wide range of statutory, program, operational, and
fiscal issues. They responded to approximately 20 specific data requests made by committee
members and provided dozens of documents to the committee for review. All data requested by the
committee was provided, and division staff did not provide a recommendation to the committee
related to which facility would best meet the needs of youth and ultimately communities. Pursuant
to a specific request by the committee, the division did provide examples of options the committee
could consider as well as some information on how any consolidation might be implemented.

The committee received copies of resolutions passed by several local legislative bodies as well as
approximately 20 other items of correspondence from interested policy-makers, organizations,
individuals, and elected officials. At the meeting on June 2, the committee conducted a structured
conversation that included observations and comments based on the facility tours, reviewing the
written information provided, and asked further questions of division staff. Additionally, the
committee reviewed key issues (reflected in the themes in the body of the report) and some of the
critical components that should go into ultimate recommendations, including:

6 Educational Programming

Reentry/Reintegration Issues

Family Engagement/Involvement

a Assessment

9 Treatment and Programming

6 Institutional Climate

a Cultural Competency

Physical Plant

a Transportation

9 Costs Associated with Consolidation

The discussions of June 2 and June 21 formed the basis of this report, including statements of the
recommendations to be provided to the G0vernor and Department Secretary. Meetings were open to
the public, and agendas and minutes from the committee?s meetings are available to the public upon
request.

Jr; ne 2:010  

 

 

 

REGARDING THE CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

The most direct charge to the committee is re?ected in the media release announcing the formation
of the committee, namely ?The Juvenile Corrections Review Committee will comprehensively explore
how best to serve juvenile offenders in the future while reducing costs, including possible
consolidation of the institutions and/or programming?.

Both in the initial statement issued by the Governor and the initial presentation and statement to
the committee by Secretary Raemisch, it was apparent that this charge represents a serious and
legitimate interest in seeking an ?outside? perspective on how best to move the juvenile corrections
system forward. The committee did not begin its work with a focus solely on consolidation. In fact,
the committee gathered information that helped inform options from closing neither facility to
closing both Ethan Allen School (EAS) and Lincoln Hills School (LHS) (and creating smaller,
regional secure facilities). It was clear that if consolidation was necessary, making a
recommendation on which facility should be closed would be a difficult decision and that ?if this was
an easy decision, it would have been made already.? Our work only served to reinforce and deepen
our understanding of the complexity of the issues involved, the opportunities this change presents,
the impact(s) our recommendations may have, and'the challenges faced in implementing substantive
changes in the system.

While the charge relates most specifically to determining what the best environment for serving
youthful offenders is, we understand that our recommendations and the ultimate decisions made go
beyond the immediate impact on the youth and families served in the juvenile corrections system.
There are economic interests, employment issues, geographic and racial concerns, and political
considerations that will inevitably impact final decisions made. As discussions go forward, there
undoubtedly will be additional information provided and other opinions expressed. Those may be
given whatever weight is appropriate by the ultimate decision-makers. We were asked to provide an
?outside perspective? on this issue and believe we have done so.

Finally, we submit that Wisconsin is at a ?crossroads? in how best to structure the future of a
comprehensive and cost-effective juvenile justice system that ensures safety for our communities,
provides meaningful opportunities for youth to learn the skills they need to become productive
members of our communities, and addresses the underlying needs of youth who commit offenses
against others. With that in mind, we take this opportunity to provide our recommendations on the
more immediate issue (related to consolidating the two male institutions) but also remark on the
importance of viewing this decision within a larger vision for a state?wide juvenile justice system.

,June 2010 5 

 

 

LIMITATIONS AND OF THE PROCESS

This was, from the beginning, an incredibly challenging task and timeline. The committee is aware
that our Work was necessarily limited both by the appropriate timeframe provided by the Governor
and the time and energy committee members had to dedicate to this task. We understand that
department staff and others more closely connected to the daily operations of the boys? institutions
have been working on this issue for several years and that much of the information reviewed by the
committee has been included in prior public documents and/or has been the focus of prior public
discussions, communications, and even proposed legislation. Not all committee members were able
to attend all meetings, and we are not suggesting that we asked every possible question, gathered
every possible document, conducted every possible visit, or that our opinions somehow supersede the
work of others. Therefore, the ultimate discussion by the committee reflects our impressions of what
we saw, heard, and read during our time together, and our recommendations should be considered in
that light.

Nonetheless, this is a committee made up of insightful, engaged, concerned, diverse, and competent
members. Members made an immediate and incredible commitment to an ambitious schedule of
meetings that would allow us to accomplish the task in close to the allotted time. We invited and
heard testimony and received communications from an array of critical system partners, asked for
and were provided dozens of documents in response to questions raised by committee members, had
the opportunity to tour both facilities and to speak directly to youth, and conducted meaningful and
respectful discussions to arrive at our final recommendation(s). .

June 2010 6 

 

 

A CONTEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND VISION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE

During the course of our meetings and discussions, there were a number of themes and issues that
emerged, re?ecting the sense of the committee that resolution of the immediate issue of potential
consolidation is inevitably intertwined with a host of other juvenile justice system issues and
opportunities. These following statements help inform and expand upon the recommendations
presented by the committee and should be considered equally as important as the more immediate
recommendation(s) related to consolidation of the boys? institutions.

Core Value Underlying Recommendations

While there are many factors or criteria upon which committee recommendations could be based, the
committee always returned to the fundamental value that our task was to recommend what we
believe is the best environment to give youth a chance to turn their lives around and return readv to
contribute to our communities.

We take note of the many other issues that surround this task, including but not limited to (1) the
economic i1npact(s) on a region of closing a facility, (2) the i1npact(s) on the lives of staff (and their
families) employed at the institutions, (3) the opportunities for utilizing one of the facilities if closed,
(4) the relationship of this decision to future opportunities to improve the juvenile justice system,
and (5) the practical challenges that will be faced in making a successful transition to a new model
for juvenile corrections. We respect and understand the input we received around these issues, and
these issues will undoubtedly play a role in subsequent decisions made. Nonetheless, our
preeminent focus always returned to our fundamental charge, focusing on what will work best in the
long run for youth, their families, and our communities.

The Need for Investments in Core Social Institutions and Prevention

While not immediately within the scope of the charge to our committee, we assert it is important to
reinforce what everyone knows - that we should View corrections, as well as local juvenile justice
efforts, within a comprehensive strategy that strengthens and supports families, invests in core
social institutions schools, neighborhood centers, after school programs), promotes proven
prevention efforts, supports early and appropriate intervention and services when problems occur,
and when necessary provides the structure and control to ensure both short and long term
community safety. 

The committee took particular note that the youth served in the juvenile correctional system have
multiple and complex needs (cg. mental health needs, basic health needs, reconnect with cultural
identity, special education and remedial educational needs, and social skill deficits) that do not
diminish the harmful impact their behavior has had on their community and families but do reflect a
fundamental understanding of what can be done to prevent their negative behaviors in the first
place. We know more than ever what works to help at-risk youth navigate successfully through
adolescence into early adulthood, and we believe it is important to affirm that we can and should do
all we can to make that happen.

For instance we know that a child who is substantially behind in reading ability by the end of third
grade is at a dramatically higher risk of school failure and delinquency involvement, yet we struggle
to fully invest in quality early care and learning to bring all children to the ?school starting line?
ready to learn. Racial disparities that are identifiable at that early age remain and are reflected in

June 20 10 ?7 

 

 

that same disproportionality we see in the achievement gap in our schools and in our juvenile and
adult corrections population. And, investments in prevention are often the first to be reduced when
local and state budgets get tight.

The committee recognizes the important role that parents, the faith community, schools, service
organizations, mentors and volunteers, policymakers, and others play in their future and that
decisions about juvenile corrections need to be made as part of a larger vision. Expanded
involvement at this level is essential in restructuring of Juvenile Corrections

Short-Term Decisions and a Long-Term Vision for Wisconsin?s Juvenile Justice System

A substantial amount of input from others and subsequent committee discussion focused on the
importance of viewing the immediate decision as the first step in a longer-term opportunity to review
a host of juvenile justice system improvements. 

The fact that Wisconsin has seen a substantial reduction in the number of youth placed in juvenile
correctional institutions is not unique to Wisconsin and is in large part due to a combination of
decisions, some made many years ago and some that continue to evolve, and other social and
demographic changes. Specifically, having two larger institutions reflected utilization trends and
decisions of the 1960?s into the 1970?s in what role the state should play in the system. Similar to
the adult model, the cost of placing a youth in a juvenile correctional facility was borne by the state,
and both the perceptions and reality of increasingly serious juvenile crime and the lack of local
alternatives drove decisions that resulted in increasing institution populations. Creation of the
Youth Aids funding system (more about that later) contributed to changing that funding dynamic
and the direction of juvenile justice and corrections in Wisconsin. Passage of the Children?s Code in
1976 and more recently the Juvenile Code in 1996 clearly had impacts on practice and populations in
the institutions. Substantive investments at the local level in alternatives to corrections have meant
that youth who would have been in a correctional institution 5-10?15 years ago are instead served in
their communities. Wraparound and coordinated service team models that work with youth with
multiple problems have developed in nearly half the counties in Wisconsin, and the growing use of
evidence?based practices at both the state and local level seems to be working.

Fundamentally, the average daily pepulation in CIs is a function of two factors: (1) how many youth
are placed there, and (2) how long they stay. Not only have the numbers of youth placed declined,
but it also should be noted that the average length of stay in a CI has declined substantially over
the past decade due to several program changes and the focus on placing youth in less restrictive
environments when appropriate. Although Serious Juvenile Offenders may spend up to 2 or more
years in a CI this is the exception. As counties have become more engaged in treatment and
reentry planning, the opportunities to reduce the length of stay for youth while still ensuring safety
for the community have continued to grow. There is every reason to believe that collaboration
between counties and DJ will continue to grow and as long as counties have the resources to create
and sustain local programs, the length of stay should not increase in the near future.

Just as past decisions have had implications that we are dealing with today, we believe decisions
made now will have implications for years to come and that viewing consolidation as anything more
than a first step toward larger system change is shortsighted.

June 2010 8

 

 

RelationshiplPartnership with Counties toward a More Integrated System

The committee heard from a number of presenters about the importance of viewing this change as an
opportunity to reexamine the nature of the relationship between county juvenile justice services and
investments and the Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJ C). In fact, over the years, on?going
communication between DJ and counties has led to numerous practice changes, ideally directed
toward ensuring that the programming provided by DJ is appropriate and that the likelihood of
successful and sustained reintegration back into the community is increased. rl?he committee heard
testimony regarding the challenges of collaboration between the DJ and counties related to cost of
services as well as building a strong service ?bridge? between local and state agencies. rl?his directly
affects issues of re-entry and re-integration of youth back into the community and also affects the
length of stay in CI facilities due to rules violations (not new offenses)). This is a clear indicator of
the need for a new initiative of state and county collaboration.

As will be noted more in a later section, one of the major issues that bind counties and DJ together
is the manner in which DJ is funded, the vast majority of funding as program revenue based on
counties essentially ?purchasing? correctional services from the state. The balancing of intervention
and safety goals shared by counties and DJ within this funding structure is sometimes perceived as
a source of dissonance. Yet, just as counties have made great efforts to reduce costs by finding ways
to safely serve youth at the local level, DJ has made efforts over time to keep the cost of
correctional services as low as possible while still maintaining core programs and services. As the
populations in the institutions have steadily declined over the last decade, the challenge for both
local and state agencies has grown. At times, this challenge obscures what is perhaps the more
significant aspect of the relationship, namely how counties and DJ can work together to
successfully meet the goals of the Juvenile Code.

Furthermore, the committee was provided information about the nature and range of some of the
program efforts that counties have made to meet their needs. Throughout the state youth are being
served locally in ways that less than a decade ago would not have occurred. Going forward, building
on the of both the county and state systems, there are really two main areas of
collaboration that the committee took note of: (1) helping to ensure that the right youth are placed in
the correctional system at the right time, and (2) ensuring that transitions are accomplished in a
coordinated manner so that youth get started on the right track when placed in an institution and
that reentry planning includes resources and services at the local level that can support the positive
behavior and learning changes youth make while in an institution. The responsibility for these
transitions has to be a shared responsibility of both counties and DJC, with the counties as
?purchasers? of services but ultimately the recipients of returning youth. Clarifying expectations
about what can be accomplished by sending a youth to a CI and understanding how to support the
transition from the intensive structure and programming of the Cl back into the community is an
important task that counties need to take responsibility for. Likewise, DJ has the responsibility to
ensure that all aspects of programming are directed toward reentry and must be proactive in
outreach and engaging aftercare staff and families/others who will be involved in helping to promote
a youth?s successful return.

?Si

June 2010 9 

 

 

Fiscal Issues and Challenges for both the State and Counties

As noted above, one of the issues which a number of presenters focused on related to the funding
mechanism for juvenile corrections and local juvenile justice services. The Department and
Legislative Fiscal Bureau has prepared a number of documents providing the history and issues
related to Youth Aids, so it is not necessary to reiterate that within this report.

What is important, however, is that for many committee members and for the general public, the
complex nature of funding juvenile corrections is a little-understood aspect of Wisconsin?s system.
Prior to the creation of Youth Aids, Wisconsin?s juvenile corrections system was funded essentially
the same as the adult system - namely, local units of government (counties) were responsible for
dealing with local services and programs and the state paid the cost of placements in juvenile
corrections. Creation of the Youth Aids system tied the funding of juvenile corrections to the nature
of decisions made at the local level by requiring that counties pay the daily rate of services provided
by juvenile corrections if and when the court placed a youth in corrections. This system provided
support and an incentive for counties to create local alternatives to corrections and avoid
unnecessary out-of?home placements. This unique funding strategy has, in many ways, been a
model for juvenile justice funding in other states and to a large extent has had the intended effect of
?driving? services to the local level. It is not, however, without some problems. -

Since Youth Aids funds do not cover the full cost of delinquency-related services, and since the
increases in the daily rates charged to counties has increased significantly faster than the Youth
Ai'ds fund (particularly since 1996 when the increase in daily rates and the Youth Aids fund were
?disconnected?), in many jurisdictions Youth Aids funds are now used almost entirely to fund
correctional and other out-of?home placements. While the state provides over $100 million for Youth
Aids, representing in the neighborhood of 50% of all government expenditures (local and state) for
juvenile justice, the committee heard from a number of presenters that the fund is not sufficient to
fulfill its original purpose and/or that the reliance on Youth Aids daily rate payments (program
revenue) for such a large share of juvenile corrections? support needs review. In reality, under the 
current system, the only way to reduce the daily rate (and thereby diverting more funds to the local
level) is to increase the number of youth in juvenile corrections (see subsequent section) or
substantially reduce juvenile correctional costs. The committee notes that Cl costs are comparable
to costs associated with other intensive residential placements, so significant reductions in
expenditures is likely to have a deleterious impact on the effectiveness of programming provided by
the department.

There are a number of funding options that have been included in prior documents created by the
department and that information was presented to the committee. In particular, the committee
- takes note of recommendations presented by the Wisconsin Counties Association and AFSCME that
suggest there are a number of options that could be considered to help fund juvenile correctional
placements which concurrently allows counties to retain a higher percentage of their Youth Aids
allotment. These include: (1) transferring the costs associated with the education component of 013
to the state school aids fund, (2) transferring some fixed costs (utilities, capital expenditures, facility
maintenance, etc.) related to institutions to be paid for out of general program revenue, (3) having
the state review and assume costs for health care within the general Medicaid BadgerCare Plus
program, (4) utilizing federal revenues from the school?based breakfast and lunch program to help

June 2010 10 

 

 

offset a portion of the daily rate, (5) removing costs for additional high?intensive service from the
?blended? daily rate mental health services for girls at Southern Oaks and boys at Mendota
Juvenile Treatment Center; (6) increase the number of offenses for which the state would assume
payment either wholly or a portion - as is currently the case for youth committed under the Serious
Juvenile Offender 0] program), and (7) establishing a daily rate that represents, for example, the
average of the daily rates of other comparable out-of?home placements and simply fund any ?gap?
from general purpose revenue funds.

The committee is aware that consolidation will not have an immediate impact on the daily rate for
juvenile correctional placement(s). This is somewhat contrary to what one would expect, but it is a
function of two major factors: (1) the number of youth placed has continued to decline well beyond
what anyone would have anticipated, and (2) although some costs have been reduced as the result of
not filling vacant positions, the department has not implemented savings plans to bring the costs
down as fast as the population has declined. That brings us to the current situation in which
reasonable projections to begin to address the significant deficit (estimated in the neighborhood of
$25 million in this biennium) or to maintain the daily rate near its current level cannot be
accomplished without consolidation. In reality, consolidation may at best, slow an increase in daily
rates. Short of a substantial change in the funding structure of juvenile corrections, continuing to
operate two complete male institutions is not fiscally responsible.

The important point in this discussion is not that the committee was asked by the Governor to
address Youth Aids funding issues but rather that it became abundantly clear that it is important to
the future of the juvenile justice system that funds intended to support local programming not be
further eroded by either the immediate decision related to consolidation or failure to consider other
revenue streams or cost savings that can essentially ?re-balance? and reinforce the important Youth
Aids concept and support necessary secure correctional programs.

Demographic Changes and Population Projections

The committee did request and did review a variety of information intended to answer a couple of
questions: (1) Whether there are populations of youth not currently receiving services in juvenile
corrections that would be better served if placed in juvenile corrections, and (2) Whether there is a
way to predict the future populations of the male that should impact the committee?s
recommendation and ultimate decision made.

Related to the first question, there were a number of suggestions for increasing the population,
including: (1) youth under the age of 18 who are currently housed in adult correctional institutions,
(2) youth dealt with in the community that would better be served in a Cl, (3) merging the girls
currently held at Southern Oaks into one of the male institutions, and (4) returning jurisdiction over
17-year-olds to the juvenile system. Each of these populations presents opportunities and
challenges, but the committee did not spend a substantive amount of time on discussing these
options. There is at most minimal anecdotal evidence that there are youth currently being served at
the local level that would be more likely to benefit from a juvenile correctional placement. In fact, all
research about the relative effectiveness of community vs. correctional placement care suggests
otherwise. There is, however, more evidence that juvenile correctional placements are likely to be
more effective at reducing reoffendint;r behavior for more serious youthful offenders than adult
correctional placements. Current populations and capacity at the 013 suggests that additional

June 2.010 11 i,

 

 

youth 17 -year-olds) could be accommodated at a CI and/or that adding those youth could spur
the development of other options for programs that ensure community safety and successfully
redirect youth. There was limited discussion in considering moving the girls from Southern Oaks
Girls School, largely due to the fact that it was not within the defined scope of the charge to the
committee and there is concern about ensuring the unique needs of girls are met and not ?lost?
within a larger male institution (recall that girls were once housed at Lincoln Hills).

Related to factors that help inform the future needs, the committee received information about (1)
demographic projections, recognizing that the peak ages for crime are 14~24 (so, under current
statutes, 14- 16 year-olds would fall within juvenile jurisdiction) and therefore as that cohort of youth
declines or grows there is likely to be a corresponding fall or rise in juvenile delinquency, and (2)
general crime and arrest rates. There are some factors that suggest we may be at the ?bottom? of the
trends related to delinquency, but consistent with prior department projections and the current state
of research there is no way to predict a substantive rise or fall in youth crime in the near future 
3-7 years). It is likely that the need for juvenile corrections will rise at some point, but if/when that
occurs it will provide an opportunity to consider alternative options to meet the need. Examples of
other ways to manage growth for youth who need restrictive custodial care that were discussed
included: (1) finding ways to provide some ?exibility for the existing juvenile detention facilities (17
in the state) to serve as a short-term secure placement for youth beyond what is now done, (2)
finding ways to support the development of regional secure facilities, (3) reviewing current
revocation practices for youth on aftercare supervision, andlor (4) utilizing the capacity that exists in
a statewide network of private residential care centers, group homes, and treatment foster homes.

In short, what may be a growing need sometime in the future does not necessarily require that the
only solution will be to expand or open a secure juvenile correctional institution.

The committee concludes that from the standpoint of growth in the number of youth held (whether
by taking on additional population(s) or growth in youth crime) some form of consolidating the two
male juvenile institutions is feasible at this time and for the near future. The committee also urges
implementation of a ?hard cap? on the number of youth that can ultimately be held in any institution
so that if/as the population grows, the facility is not overcrowded. The detrimental effects of chronic
overcrowding in juvenile institutions are well documented in the literature, so absent a commitment
to the development of alternatives if/when needed, consolidation is at best a short-term solution.

Impact of consolidating facilities

The committee takes note of issues that will be created by some form of consolidation, including:

(1) The potential impact on programming and the need to ensure that individualized youth needs are
being met,

(2) The impact on youth themselves,

(3) The impact on the current workforce, and

(4) The economic impact of a change on the communities in which the facilities are located.

For purposes of the committee?s consideration, it is the first two issues that are given the greatest
weight.

First, the committee discussed concerns that some of the of the current alignment (two
institutions open, relatively low youth-to-staff ratios) may very well be related to the fact that the
relatively low number of youth at each institution makes it easier to provide quality attention,

June 2010 12 

 

 

education, and programming and that merging the populations into one facility could have a
detrimental impact on the quality of programming. Based on information provided by the
department, for example, if the institutions are consolidated then the student?teacher ratio would go
up whereas we know that differentiated instruction requires lower student?teacher ratios. On the
other hand, there may be some gains in consolidating programs. For example, youth would not have
to be transferred from one institution to another to receive programming that currently is provided
only at one institution.

Related to youth there are potentially negative impacts resulting from consolidation, largely
revolving around the distance they may be from their community and the sense of safety and support
they may feel if staff-youth ratios are substantially altered. Both of these issues need to be
addressed in some fashion for any consolidation to ultimately be successful for youth.

Having noted these critical issues, the committee strongly notes that if/when consolidation occurs,
there must be a concurrent commitment to maintaining, if not improving, the quality of
programming offered at the remaining school. There is nothing to be gained, other than saving
some initial costs, if consolidation occurs in such a way as to reduce the effectiveness of the
programming provided to youth in placement or unnecessarily increases their length of stay due to
?down time? as they wait to enter a treatment program. An important recommendation of the
committee endorses some form of continued oversight or input for a transition that can work with
the department in ensuring that any transition is done with quality as a high priority.

The committee was certainly made aware of the disruption to the lives of current staff and their
families that will occur with some form of consolidation. in most respects, the quality of the
programming at both schools is directly attributable to the quality of staff providing services. The
committee takes note that as the youth population has fallen, the department has made workforce
reductions, albeit not at the same rate as the decline in the population. Since the funding mechanism
for juvenile corrections directly ties the workforce need to the need for services (as ?purchased? by
the counties), some substantial reductions are inevitable. As part of any consolidation option,
ultimately the department will be responsible for supporting staff and successfully managing the
workforce reduction. We do take particular note of concerns expressed by AFSCME that if one of the
facilities is converted for use as an adult program, there are a number of challenges in transitioning
and re-training staff. If consolidation occurs, we urge the department and union to work together to
minimize these problems.

Finally, the committee received information confirming the importance of each of the schools to the
economy of their respective and the negative impact(s) of closure. While there is a
suggestion that closure of Lincoln Hills may have a proportionally more significant impact than
closure of Ethan Allen, the committee recognizes that we cannot independently make any
conclusions about this particular issue. We recognize and appreciate the input provided by local
officials related to this concern but in the end, the committee did not view it within our purview to
analyze those relative impacts, leaving that issue for others to consider as any decision moves
forward.

Although referenced early in some communications, the intent to have the committee consider
alternate uses for either facility if closed for youth was not included in our deliberations. Clearly
either facility may be considered by the department for an alternate use, and that may ameliorate

June 2010 13 

 

 

some of the harmful effects of closure at this time, albeit it will take time for any change to be made.
At its most basic level, there is some sense among committee members that ?if we take something
away from a community, we have to give something back?.

Reintegration and Reentry

As referenced earlier, successful reintegration and reentrv of youth was a critical theme in the
committee?s discussion and considerations. Of particular note is the disproportionate number of
youth placed in juvenile corrections that come from the southeast quadrant of the state, representing
approximately 70% of all CI placements. The department has made notable progress, beginning
early in the decade to focus considerable energy and resources on the Going Home Project, a model
effort that strengthens the bridge between life for the youth in the institution and life upon return to
their community. For Milwaukee youth, this effort has been further strengthened through the
Targeted Reentry collaborative with the Boys and Girls Club and increased collaboration with
Milwaukee Public Schools and community based programming such as Running Rebels. While
making those local connections is made more difficult by distance at LHS, a strong effort was noted
through programming to connect youth with post-secondary programs that could begin upon their
return. Both Facilities (EAS and LHS) are making effort in this area; however the re-entry structure
needs further attention and expanded structural changes. State and County collaboration is key in
expanding the successful reintegration of youth to their families and communities.

In any case, for reasons related to the importance of family engagement and supporting reentry, 
matter how consolidation occurs. it is imperative that the department meet this reentry need
through enhanced and/or new program initiatives.

Issues with Consolidation 82; Transition

Although referenced in prior sections, the committee received information and takes note of the need
for adequate transition planning that: (1) provides additional staff training and supports to ensure
that new, transferred, or reallocated staff are able to adequately meet the needs of youth, (2)
provides for the orderly reassignment of youth to programming that does not ?set them back? in
terms of completion of specific programs, (3) ensures proactive engagement and information-sharing
with parents/guardians, and (4) provides for constructive input, information-sharing, and dialogue-
with counties utilizing juvenile correctional services. In short, consolidation provides an opportunity
to build on current and create a single, excellent program.

Making any substantive transition will not be easily accomplished, and absent a strong commitment
by the department and staff to maintain focus on what is in the best interest of youth (and
ultimately promotes their successful return to the community) it will undoubtedly be easy to get
caught up in the institutional issues that need to be addressed. The closure of any facility needs to be
part of a broader paradigm shift in our State?s outlook on juvenile justice. Instead of confining youth
to expensive facilities outside of their communities, we should move aggressively toward community
based alternatives to incarceration, including community based residential care centers, group
homes, and treatment foster care homes, where these youth can maintain and strengthen
connections with their families and other significant adults in their lives. Current staff and
community constituents are a solid voice and resource for this innovative change to be implemented
in a timely and effective manner.

June 3010 14 

 

 

Statutory Issues

The committee was informed of existing statutes that require the department to operate a juvenile
facility of a line from La Crosse to Manitowoc?. And, the committee understands that the
property on which Lincoln Hills resides belongs to Lincoln County and its use was granted to the
department under an arrangement in the late 1960?s providing an opportunity to meet this statutory
requirement. If a decision is made to close Lincoln Hills and not operate any other program meeting
the statutory requirement, a statutory change would have to be made as soon as possible.

The committee also was informed that Lincoln Hills School serves the additional purpose of a
juvenile detention facility for the northern portion of the state. Wisconsin has 17 juvenile detention
centers, facilities licensed and authorized by statute to hold youth temporarily for two main reasons:
(1) holding youth subsequent to being taken into custody and pending court disposition, and (2) as a
sanction/consequence for violating court-ordered rules of supervision or their status as a Type II
juvenile correctional placement. The average length of stay in a juvenile detention facility is
typically relatively short, for example a few days to perhaps as long as ten days. Youth placed in
juvenile detention at Lincoln Hills are housed in the reception cottage, and the placing county pays
the blended daily rate for that care. In southeast Wisconsin there are a number of juvenile detention
facilities that serve that purpose, thus there is no comparable program at Ethan Allen School.
However, given the low rate of use, this is not given much weight in the committee?s ultimate
recommendation.

Reoffending Behaviors

The committee received considerable information about the reoffending rates of youth placed in
juvenile corrections and noted that reoffense rates are relatively equal for youth released from either
facility. Analysis of this data is somewhat obscured by the fact that some youth spend time in both
facilities, so it is difficult to arrive at conclusive evidence of differences.

What was of more interest to the committee was the effort made by the department in recent months
to redefine the reoffense rate of youthful offenders after their release from an institution. From
state to state there are differences in how that reoffending rate is arrived at, so it is difficult to
compare Wisconsin with other states. However, the committee took note that effort to provide a
more complete picture of reoffending behavior provides a critical step in establishing a valid and
reliable baseline on which to build future evaluation(s) as well as to being able to provide meaningful
information to the community about how youth behave after their return to the community.

In the end, the extent to which youth are able to learn and use pro-social skills when returning to
their community and avoid falling back into delinquent/criminal behavior is the ultimate test of the
success of our overall juvenile justice system. Judges want to know that they are making decisions
that are effective, the community believes that youth can be redirected but also wants to know their
investment in juvenile corrections is warranted, and those in the system need to be able to reliably
evaluate whether what they are doing is working. Tracking reoffense rates is a criticalan to track
whether we are meeting those needs.

June .2010 15

 

 

Opportunities for Other Juvenile Correctional Models

The committee recognizes that while there is an immediate decision needed it is also an opportunity
to creatively map the future of the juvenile justice system in Wisconsin. Whether that means a
change in the funding mechanism, in the fundamental relationship of counties and the state, or the
configuration of services (by region or by service type) is something that is worth further discussion
following any consolidation.

The ?Missouri Model? demonstrates an effective regionally based alternative to large juvenile
correctional facilities and a guide of how juvenile correctional services could be aligned, located, and
funded. Based on information and testimony provided to the committee, there is substantial merit in
thinking that ?down the road? we should find ways to provide for a continuum of services and
programs, including secure care, within a reasonable proximity to where youth are from and where
their families reside. Much of that does exist now through a statewide network of private programs,
so in many ways Wisconsin?s current system has many of the features of that model. Some form of
secure confinement will need to be part of that continuum, as well as specialized programs serving
youthful sex offenders, youth with AODA issues, mental health services, and family systems-change
programs. Those regional secure programs are not now in place, but consolidation may be a
necessary first step in that process.

Related to creative funding options, other states have focused on ways to provide incentives to move
services to being more community-based and supported by good research. And, other states have
taken the Youth Aids concept and enhanced it by incorporating community input into the nature and
level of services provided. Each state has a unique structure, so transferring a model from another
state and assuming it will ?fit? is more complicated than it sounds.

A core value of the committee in looking at what best serves youth is the need for strengthening
involvement and access for families in the care. education and treatment of the youth. Structural re-
designing of both facilities needs to include expanded attention to this. All of these ideas should
inform policy-makers about ways in which Wisconsin can continue to ensure its juvenile justice
system can be cost-effective, and the committee encourages the department and others to utilize this
as a chance to take the best ideas of others and integrate them into further system improvements.

Implications of Race

Despite much progress, Wisconsin continues to rank among the worst states in terms of the
disproportionate number of minority youth in both our adult and juvenile correctional systems. To
ignore this as a significant issue risks the credibility of any system change efforts. We cannot be
satisfied with our efforts until the system is effective for all our youth.

With this in mind, the committee noted that the staffing at both Lincoln Hills and Ethan Allen is
nowhere nearly as diverse as the youth population. This is particularly true at Lincoln Hills but not
significantly better at Ethan Allen. In going forward with any change, it is important that greater
efforts be made to recruit, train. and retain a more diverse workforce. As a beginning and part of a
long range plan, the systematic integration of community based resources need to be included in
education, programming and treatment systems at all Cl facilities at all levels of care (from

June 2010 16 

 

 

beginning assessment to reintegration in the community). As resilient as youth are, being able to
relate to the staff they are working with, and vice versa, is an important factor in the quality of the
relationship that ultimately impacts the effectiveness of programming.

Summarv of Themes

As is evident by a review of the themes above, the committee has taken this difficult task seriously
and considered a wide range of information and issues in arriving at a recommendation. The
decision will hopefully set the stage for constructive dialogue that will have a profound impact on the
future direction of juvenile justice in Wisconsin.

June 20 10 1,7 

 

 

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Committee members were overwhelmed by the range and amount of information received during the
course of our meetings. However, in order to structure our discussion that ultimately led to a set of
recommendations, the committee considered a number of core program components. Within each
component is a brief description of what we believe that component should be. That description is
followed by some examples of observations or comments about the facilities based on what the
committee saw, read, and heard. Any successful program is more than just a sum of its parts, so
neither the list of components nor the observations necessarily represent an exhaustive list, and time
and resource constraints did not necessarily permit the depth of assessment that could be made
going forward.

Educational Programming

What it should be At the heart of what most youth placed in corrections have struggled with is their
education. The vast majority of youth placed in are well behind their age-group in terms of
performance, and fundamental to their ability to successfully reenter the community will be the
extent to which they are able to overcome these deficits while in the institution and sustain
improvement when they return. Thus, there needs to be a focus not only on content and skill
development but on a fundamental change in a youth?s attitude toward believing that they can
continue to learn and in fact want to continue to learn. A quality educational program is
characterized by a commitment to three fundamental goals:

(1) Engagement - the degree to which youth are active participants in their learning,

(2) Relationships - the level and quality of relationships that youth in the school have with their
peers and with the educational staff, and

(3) Learning - whether the curriculum and educational strategies implemented are successful in
promoting both immediate learning as well as providing skills for continued learning beyond the
classroom.

What we observed and learned The committee had relatively little time to assess the school
programs on-site but did receive some additional information by way of data generated and
consultant?s reports. Some examples of observations/comments include:

a A number of committee members were struck by the fact that including the word ?school? in the
institution?s title is more than just a name. In fact the core of programming and a significant
portion of resources are focused on education. This was viewed very positively and reflects to
some degree how difficult it is to inform the community-at-large about what is actually going on
?inside the fence?. 

The committee saw and supports the department?s efforts to focus on good assessment,
individualized instruction, and improvements in literacy as the key ingredients at both schools.

a There is a desire at both schools to integrate improvements in technology into the curriculum
and instruction methods, and in both schools there is a solid emphasis on degree completion.

9 Data suggests there is a higher level/number of HSED completions at LI-IS and that efforts to
connect youth with a higher education program (including financial aid supports) are one

June 2010 18 

 

 

strength there, whereas EAS benefits from an active vocational program, a program that has
been lacking at LHS for several years.

3 From data provided there does not appear to be a marked variance in numbers of credits earned
or other measures of achievement.

6 Due to location, EAS has an advantage related to reintegrating youth back into Milwaukee
Public Schools, but staff suggests distance to LHS is not a prohibitive factor in making reentry to
school work.

a Concerns expressed to the committee by the Department's 3 internal reviews suggested a level of
dysfunction and conflict among and between a few EAS staff members that has had a
negative effect on the educational processes there. These leadership and personnel issues are
currently being addressed by the Department, but they are ultimately a joint responsibility of
EAS leadership, staff, and unions regardless of any ultimate decision related to consolidation.

9 Concerns that consolidation of facilities will detrimentally impact either school programs in
terms of increased class sizes or the challenge of ensuring adequate classroom space.

a The committee does take note that the vast majority of educational costs are borne by the daily
rate charged to counties and that no general school aids are provided to these two schools to
support that program component. This should be changed or at least addressed.

Reentry/Reintegration

What it should be Earlier sections of this report reference the high value placed on reentry as a
critical element of juvenile corrections programming. While this is most often re?ected in to what
extent planning for reentry is timely and proactive, a program with a ?reentry state of mind?
essentially weaves reentry into all aspects of its program, from assessment to behavior management
to education to family engagement to release planning and to post?release supervision.

What we observed and learned The division continues to lead the way within the department in
thinking about reentry as a critical element of programming. Through initiation of the Going Home
Project in the early part of the decade and through increased efforts to engage families and partner
with community providers and resources, the division is to be commended for placing a high priority
on this function. As it relates to the current issue, the committee members made a number of
observations, including: 

a There are significant at Ethan Allen in that the vast majority (some data shows 70% or
more) of youth placed come from the southeast quadrant of the state, and roughly one-half of all
youth placed are from Milwaukee. Location near where youth and families live is a substantial
factor in promoting successful reentry. Conversely, the distance from LHS to Where a sizable
portion of youth comes from complicates reentry.

*9 Ethan Allen also benefits as the result of a relationship with the Targeted Reentry program
managed by the Boys and Girls Club, taking advantage of both proximity and some model
practices that engage youth while at the institution in a way that can then be carried to the
community during their reentry phase. While limited in capacity and to Milwaukee only youth,
that program nonetheless is a strength at EAS as data provided suggests a substantial gain in
successful reentry for those youth who actively engage in the program.

a The committee received some differing data regarding visitation, some suggesting there is little
difference in visitation rates between the facilities and other data suggesting higher levels of

June 201-6 I 19 

 

 

visitation at EAS. However, that there is not the expected gain in family visitation for youth
placed at EAS vs. LHS as might be expected based on location likely underestimates the barriers
that still exist in successfully engaging families, even within a relatively shorter distance.

a Distance also can create problems related to successfully identifying persons other than the
youth?s parent(s) or community-based providers who can play a positive role in supporting
reentry, noting that in many cases it is not as simple as assuming that the parent alone has the
capacity/ability to adequately support continuing the progress a youth has made while at the
institution.

Assessment

What it should be - All research about what works with youthful offenders hinges on the quality of

 

individualized assessment that occurs prior to engaging youth in programming. This is as applicable
to the educational and treatment aspects of institutional life as it is in the community. Assessment
of risk(s), needs, and special needs must occur and must help drive the program
planning for each youth. The department has made a big commitment to ensuring that a quality
individualized assessment occurs after admission to a CI, and under any consolidation
scenario that commitment needs to be maintained.

What we observed and learned - The division has continued to improve its capacity and strategies to
quickly assess the individual needs and of youth placed in the institution(s). Efforts to
decrease the length of time in reception and get the first planning review (OJ OR review) re?ect an
understanding of the importance of moving a youth to quickly focus on working on what they need to
rather than spend time waiting for a plan to develop. There did not appear to be an observable
difference in the assessment process between the two facilities. 

Treatment 85 Programming

What it should be The individual needs of youth placed in continues to grow more complex.
Ultimately a successful program will have the capacity to engage youth in the right programming at

 

the right time provided by the right staff. Following good assessment, youth should be 
engaged in the appropriate programming provided by well-trained and committed staff. While more
traditional treatment for AODA and mental health needs may be a component of a good program,
more and more research suggest that interventions should focus on cognitive?behavioral approaches;
that is, changing the way a youth thinks and providing opportunities and reinforcement for learning
new ways to behave.

What we observed and learned This is clearly a strength of juvenile corrections, reflected perhaps
best by the statement of one committee member that ..this is what corrections should be about.?
Significant investments in creating and modifying the programming at the institutions to meet the
needs of the youth and families and to justify the level of investment that counties make in sending
youth need to continue. Of particular note are the division?s efforts in leading the way on developing
and updating a research-based Juvenile Cognitive Intervention Program (J the type of program
that essentially all literature points to as being the most effective in redirecting youthful offenders.
The division also demonstrates a commitment to increasing effectiveness by searching out and
implementing a variety of evidence-based practices (not only programs) that will have a positive

June 2010 20 

 

 

impact on youth and our communities. However, in comparing institutions, some differences were
noted by the committee, including:

a While both institutions operate most of the same programs, there are a couple programs at each
institution that are unique to that facility. For example,
0 LHS has an AODA treatment program while EAS has an AODA education program

0 EAS has a short-term reentry program which is different than the Cadet Achievement
Program (CAP) at LHS

EAS has the Boys 85 Girls Club program that provides recreation supports in the

institution as well as the Targeted Reentry program reference earlier

LHS provides a Native American Tribal program

LHS provides greater opportunities related to outdoor/environmental education

EAS provides a vocational program, reference earlier I

LHS provides a short-term detention function for northern counties, although its use is

0000

minimal only 6 counties have utilized that program in recent years, and the average
daily population for detention youth is less than 1.0)
EAS provides an opportunity for youth to participate in WIAA sports activities

The committee sees significant value in all of the programs provided and strongly expressed a
concern that in any process of consolidation there has to be an effort to ensure that the diversity of
programming is maintained/recreated in the remaining institution.

a LHS has made modifications in their behavior management program that has apparently
resulted in significant improvements in behavior of youth. Ideally the behavior management
program should be well integrated across all aspects of the daily life of youth so that youth
counselors, teachers, treatment specialists, and others all work together to reinforce what youth
are learning through CIP. This reduces not only behavior issues while in the institution but
better prepares youth for a successful return to their community This appears to be more
integrated into the program at LHS than currently in place at EAS.

a The committee was impressed by the Cadet Achievement Program (CAP) at LHS, in part due to
the disciplined nature of the graduation ceremony held while on?site, but perhaps more due to
the understanding of how that aspect of the program is integrated into overall high expectations
and support related to academic performance, development of social skills, and demonstration of
leadership skills.

a LHS appears to have a more well-developed Victim Impact Program (VIP), although EAS is
beginning to more fully develop that program component to be a consistent part of the program.

a LHS provided more opportunity for exercising in the security cottage than EAS, which can be a
helpful part of working with youth who are experiencing problems.

a A notable strength at EAS is the Intern program, the first and only doctoral level
intern program accredited in the nation. This program provides significant
additional resources to EAS as well as SOGS, and it provides a unique opportunity to diversify
the staff working with youth and direct young professionalsinto working with youth that are
often underserved. The accreditation applies to the program at EAS only, and a change in
location (to LHS) would require the division to seek ire-accreditation and may not attract the
same diversity or quality of intern applicants (is. working closer to a metropolitan area vs. in
northern Wisconsin).

June 2010 g1 

 

 

 

Family Engagement and Involvement

What it should be - A critical element of programming in a Cl is the extent to which significant
family members are engaged and involved in their youth?s life during the time the youth is in
placement and even more importantly as the youth prepares to return to their community. The
extent to which families are engaged may be reflected in how often they are able to visit or phone
their child, whether they are engaged in parent-teacher conferences, and whether they are involved
in the planning opportunities afforded to them through the OJ 0R (Office of Juvenile Offender
Review) process.

What we observed and learned Within the last decade, the division has increased outreach efforts
to engage families and/or significant adults in the lives of youth while in placement. There appears
to be an understanding at both facilities of the important role families play in the lives of youth.
Some observations and comments related to the facilities include:

a As noted earlier, despite its relative proximity to where the youth come from, visitation data still
re?ects the challenges inherent in successfully engaging families in the institutional life of their
child. Nonetheless, the department?s efforts to do things like parent?teacher conferences, find
ways to involve family members in the OJ OR planning reviews, and developing alternative ways
to support communication with their child, such as videoconferencing or conference calling, were
noted and commended. No-matter how consolidation occurs, continued progress in this regard is
essential.

a The recent opening of the Visitor Center at EAS represents a substantial commitment to this
issue and is a dramatic improvement over prior capacity to support and encourage family
contact(s). It is too early to determine if this, combined with proximity to most families, will
significantly improve visitation rates, but it is a big step forward for EAS.

a Distance from where most youth live clearly is an obstacle for family involvement at LHS. While
some transportation assistance is provided and some efforts are underway to utilize technology
for communications, this has to be a significant factor in considerations related to consolidation.
Under even the best circumstances, it is difficult for a family from southeast Wisconsin to get to
or a family from northern or western Wisconsin to get to EAS but given that the vast
majority of youth are from the southeast quadrant, it is obviously a bigger issue if EAS is closed.

9 Some committee members voiced the idea that youth may actually benefit from an LHS
commitment simply because it is a considerable distance away from their home environment,
providing youth the opportunity to reflect on their personal behaviors and provide the incentive
to return to their community by successfully completing their program.

Additionally, with the advent of shorter stays in a Cl the potentially negative impact of being
placed in a more distant Cl whether that be EAS for youth from the north or LHS for youth
from the south is reduced.

In a related aspect to direct family engagement, the committee views this as a good time to consider
other opportunities for giving voice to the perspective of families/parents in a role of advocates or
ombudsman in partnership with the division, and a recommendation related to creating some form of
a parent advisory group will be included in this report.

June 2010


E53

 

 

Institutional Climate

What it should be The concept of institutional climate is intended to reflect a combination of factors
that reflect to what extent the overall atmosphere of a facility is conducive to supporting the kind of
learning and behavior change youth in placement need to accomplish. This includes things like to
what degree youth and staff feel safe in the facility, the positive nature of staff-youth interactions,
the nature of staff?to-staff communications and support, how youth interact with each other, and
how staff work collaboratively across job categories to focus their efforts into a unified effort to
redirect youth. While this is sometimes characterized as ?how the facility feels?, in reality it is a
composite of observable behaviors that do in fact?either inhibit or contribute to successful behavior
change and reintegration. Programs that are characterized as having high expectations, high
support, and high levels of open communication are more likely to achieve good outcome(s).

What we observed and learned - In touring the facilities, the committee felt that both institutions
were safe and well-supervised and that staff-to-youth interactions seemed positive and appropriate.
Additional comments and observations based on data and other information provided include:

6 A number of committee members felt that the atmosphere at LHS seemed more relaxed, perhaps
re?ecting a generally more positive relationship within the facility.

9 Data provided reflected a disproportionately higher level of Youth Conduct Reports and an even
higher disproportionate number of rules violations recorded by youth at EAS than LHS.
Assuming reporting procedures are relatively consistent (as stated by DJ 0 staff), the data
suggests more problem behaviors at EAS than LHS, some of which may be the result of recent
changes in the behavioral management program at LHS.

9 Interestingly, although not directly within the scope of the committee?s charge, the institution
that appears to record the most behavior problems is SOGS.

a Youth complaints in 2009 at EAS were approximately double the number of complaints at LHS.

a Data on the number of youth placed on observation'status and battery/injury to staff, by quarter
in 2009 ranged from a low of seven times to as much as 15 time higher at EAS than LHS, 
whereas some data provided indicated a higher level of injury to staff at LHS due to altercations
with youth.

a The number of staff grievances formally filed in 2009 was dramatically different, with a total of
109 filed at EAS and no formal grievances filed at LHS (10 filed at SOGS). However, a number
of staff at EAS have expressed a sense of optimism related to recent leadership changes at EAS
that may have a positive influence on this at EAS.

?9 Some committee members expressed a concern that both institutions may rely too much on use
of segregation to deal with disciplinary problems, although staff report that use is decreasing.
Consolidation should not result in an increased rate of use of segregation, and efforts to find
alternate ways to deal with problem behavior(s) should continue.

Cultural Competency

What it should be Research tells us that the concept of ?responsivity? is a critical factor in how

 

successful various programs will be. This includes knowing that staff who are able to work with and
communicate with youth in a way that conveys respect for and an understanding of their cultural
and ethnic background are more likely to be effective. Therefore, it is important that not only the

June 2010 23 

 

 

programmatic content but also the ?delivery? of that content be done in a way that reflects that
understanding.

What we observed and learned - Given the high levels of minority youth placed in the institutions,
staff diversity is minimal and of significant concern at both institutions. Committee observations and
comments include:

Efforts to diversify staff will ultimately be more difficult at LHS than EAS. EAS can draw from
a larger and more diverse pool of potential candidates, is more likely able to contract for
culturally appropriate services if not hired on staff, and would serve more as a ?feeder system?
for a culturally diverse workforce who take advantage of their experience in the institution and
perhaps move into employment in the community at large.

a In terms of connecting with community-based providers who may come in from the ?outside? to
work with youth, EAS is better able to draw from a diverse workforce.

A strength of LHS is the provision of a program for Native American youth and is'open to non-
native youth on a voluntary basis as well. If LHS is closed, that program would need to be
recreated at EAS.

Physical Plant

What it should be FThere are two aspects to the physical plant that merit attention: (1) the physical
plant (layout, nature of housing units, access to recreation space, etc.) needs to support the goals of
the institution, and (2) the physical plant should be clean, in good condition, and merit continued
fiscal investment(s). Developmental research suggest that to the extent possible the general
environment of a facility be as ?normative? as possible; that is, while ensuring that the design
provides the necessary safety and security to manage an institution it also needs to help teach youth
I how to live in a ?normal? environment. This can be accomplished in a number of ways too numerous
to include here, but it is important that the physical environment and programmatic components
work hand-in?hand. Related to the structural aspects of a facility, it is important that facilities are
clean, that the buildings and materials not be allowed to deteriorate, and that there is some long-
term consideration of the costs associated with capital improvements.

What we observed and learned - The committee observed that both facilities were clean and in
generally good shape. While the buildings at LHS are newer, a review of the list of capital projects
evidences that overall capital costs requested for the next biennium are higher at LHS than EAS.
This is of more importance if a decision to close one facility or the other completely is made. If a
decision to reassign the space for use as an adult institution, it is likely the capital projects outlined
will need to be done no matter what the immediate choice is.

Further, the committee noted that:

a The school facility at LHS is on one floor and under ?one roof? compared to the buildings at EAS
that are multiple stories.

The fact that LHS was part of a Land Grant, namely it is property owned by Lincoln County and
leased to the state for use as a juvenile facility. Closing LHS and converting it to another use
will require renegotiating that lease.

June 2010 24

 

 

a That the campus at LHS is 880 acres, compared to 216 acres at EAS. While this may be viewed
by some as a positive for LHS in terms of the capacity for growth, the general sense of the
committee?s discussion is that expansion of either juvenile correctional facility beyond its current
capacity is not desirable. Rather, expansion should occur through creation of other alternatives.

Staff

What it should be Critical to the success of the program is the staff, both in terms of alignment and

 

organization of staff as well as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of individual staff working with
youth. It is important to have well-trained staff who want to work with youth, staff that receive
sufficient training and support to maintain and increase their skills over time, and staff that are
integrated into the overall programming of the institution.

What we observed and learned Although time to interact with staff was limited, the committee
noted that:

a All staff that the committee had contact with seemed committed and professional and

I represented their institution well.

3 Based on information from division management, in recent years more targeted and focused
training has been provided to staff in an effort to ensure that limited training funds are directed
toward evidence-based practice improvements and developing other skills that are needed to
increase effectiveness. This is a positive trend that needs to Continue no matter what happens
with the existing facilities.

Miscellaneous Components/Considerations

Transportation The committee did not spend much time talking about issues related to
transportation other than our focus on the importance of location and the ability of family members
and other key persons in a youth?s life to get to the institution for visits. However, there are other
considerations as well, including the transportation required (1) when youth are first committed to
the institution (transportation typically provided by the county sheriff department), (2) when youth
need to physically appear at a subsequent court hearing (sometimes this can be accomplished via
video conferencing, but in many cases actual physical attendance is required or desirable, (3) when a
youth is revoked/returned to the institution for non-compliance, (4) for community-based providers
who may need to meet with the youth prior to their return to the community, and/or (5) when a
youth is in the process of reentry and needs to be taken to their community for purposes of school
enrollment, job search, or other reintegration supporting activities.

It is clear that location and the availability of transportation for a host of reasons is critical, and this
is inherently made easier at EAS than LHS, particularly given the overwhelming numbers of youth
from southeast Wisconsin. For parents, professionals working with youth, county staff participation
in OJ OR, costs and time associated with initial-placement of youth, and reintegration planning EAS
has a distinct advantage. The department has made efforts, through a limited bus schedule, to
provide support for parents to visit their child at LHS, but the committee notes that is a pretty
limited schedule. If more youth are placed at LHS, additional resources to support parental
involvement will be necessary.

June 2010 25 

 

 

The department is gradually increasing efforts to provide for video-conferencing for parents and
youth, and no matter what consolidation option is chosen, further exploration of ways to utilize
technology to make this happen is important.

Costs Associated with Consolidation - As noted earlier, ideally the costs associated with consolidation
would result in a lowering of the daily rate and promote some efficiencies that will ultimately benefit
the system by keeping Youth Aids funds going to counties. But, absent additional cost-saving
measures (likely beyond what can be done without seriously impacting the quality of programming),
consolidation will not impact immediate daily rates, and in fact additional reductions beyond closing
one of the two institutions will be required to meet current rate projections. In addition, the
committee took note of other cost-related issues, including:

9 Closure of EAS generates approximately $1 million in additional operating cost savings
compared to closing LHS.

The cost of transition related to facility modifications for LHS if EAS is closed is approximately
95.5 million less than if LHS is closed.

6 There Will be increased costs associated with providing transportation support for families if
EAS is closed, perhaps offset by somewhat lower operating costs of LHS.

6 Utilizing existing space at SOGS as a reception and reentry program for boys will require some
modifications and costs but does already exist within a secure area.

June 2.010 26 

 

 

Judicial Participation

In April 2010, Margaret Carpenter, Administrator of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
Division of Juvenile Corrections, asked Judge Glenn Yamahiro, Judge Neal Nielsen and Judge Mary
Triggiano to serve on the Governor?s Juvenile Corrections Review Committee. Judges Nielsen,
Yamahiro and Triggiano each had extensive backgrounds in juvenile justice, having served in the
juvenile delinquency courts and worked on various committees concerning juvenile justice.

Before accepting the appointment to the Committee, the Judges consulted with the Judicial
Commission about their ability to serve on the Committee, given the constraints of SCR 60.05 of the
Code of Judicial Ethics. They agreed to serve on the Committee, believing it was extremely
important to provide input to the Governor concerning an issue that would directly impact the
juvenile population they served. It was the judges? firm belief that judicial input on the Committee
was important given the mission of the Committee and the judges? obligations under Chapter 938 a
the Juvenile Justice Code.

The judges however also decided that their role on the Committee would have to be circumscribed
.due to the Code of Judicial Conduct. Supreme Court Rule states, in part: judge may
not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other
governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other
than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.? They
relayed this to Ms. Carpenter, who relayed it to the Governor?s Office. The Governor appointed the
Judges to the Committee.

At the first meeting of the Committee Judge Triggiano informed the Committee that pursuant to the
above code the judges may have a limited role and would abstain from a vote on institutional closure
because of their ethical obligations. Throughout the various meetings the judges offered input on
various issues, including but not limited to, juvenile delinquency, education, treatment needs, public
protection, and juvenile accountability. However, the three judges, Judge Nielsen, Judge Yamahiro,
and Judge Triggiano, abstained from voting on all formal motions, including whether to close Ethan
Allen School or Lincoln Hills School.

The Voting Process

At the last meeting of the committee at which voting on formal motions and recommendations was to
occur, nine members of the committee were present, eight in person and one by telephone. The two
absent members were Judges Nielsen and Triggiano, both of whom had pre?existing conflicts with
their court calendars. At the beginning of the meeting committee member Judge Yamahiro
confirmed that Judge Triggiano and he would be abstaining from voting. In addition, Judge Nielsen
communicated prior to the meeting that he would abstain from voting. Despite the absence of two
members, a quorum of the Committee was present at the meeting.

Co-Chair Moeser told the committee that he thought that a majority of the Committee membership
was needed to formally pass on a vote. However, he had not conferred with the committee regarding
this issue. No one objected to his suggestion. 

Following discussion of the issues and an opportunity for members to ask any more questions related
to all the options below, the motion was made to adopt Option 2 (closure of Ethan Allen School) the
committee voted as follows: five members in favor, three members opposed, and one member

June 2010 2.7 

 

 

abstained. Based on the Co-Ohair?s suggestion above, he determined that the vote was not sufficient
to formally pass the motion and inquired if any member wished to make another motion. The
committee then voted on Option 3 (closure of Lincoln Hills School) as follows: three in favor, five
opposed, and one abstention. I

Following the vote on Option 3, the Co-Chair asked if there were any other motions related to the
Options below or other motions related to issues of funding, future collaboration, or community
involvement in any transition. Recommendations 2 through 5 below reflect motions made that were
endorsed by the committee as follows: eight in favor and one abstention.

June 2010 28 

 

 

OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The committee ended up discussing four basic options and eventually voting on two of them. The
comments noted in the discussion sections below do not necessarily reflect all comments made by
committee members and to some extent are duplicative of observations noted earlier in this report.

Option 1: Keeping both CIs open at a reduced capacity;

This option has the advantage of maintaining two smaller programs and minimizing the problem
that would result from having only one facility located relatively distant from most counties.

Discussion - Comments of committee members related to this option included:

9 There are in terms of programming at both facilities. Many of the observations made
are noted in earlier sections of this report. Additionally, there is some concern as to the ability of
the facility that remains open to readily ?pick up? the quality of the programming at the closed
facility creating a CAPnlike program at EAS or duplicating the vocational program at LHS).

a If cost is the issue, efforts need to be made to offset the daily rate by using education funds,
federal school lunch funds, and medical assistance funds.

a There is no data that suggests the need for more CI space in the near future. Both admissions
to and the average length of stay have combined to create a declining population.

There is concern that moving all boys to a single institution is (1) contraindicated in research
about what works best with youthful offenders, and(2) what members observed, namely that 
both programs seem to operate better with lower numbers of youth.

a On the other hand, keeping both facilities open is contrary to national trends and continued
efforts to promote community-based programming.

a The increase in the daily rate necessitated by keeping both facilities open would be detrimental
to the ability of counties to continue to support community-based programs. Keeping both
facilities open adds to the challenge of maintaining a reasonable daily rate and/or operating
within the fiscal limitations for DJ C.

The sense of the committee is that for a variety of reasons this is not a feasible option and that at
least one of the existing CIs needs to be closed. No motion was made to adopt the option to
keep both facilities open.

Option 2: Closing Ethan Allen School and Creating a Reentry/Reception Program in Southeast
Wisconsin

This option would move the majority of functions and youth placed at Ethan Allen School to Lincoln
Hills and opening a smaller program serving reception and reentry needs in the southeast part of the
state. The department?s recommendation is that an unused building at Southern Oaks School be
converted to use for this receptionlreentry purpose. 

June 2010 29 

 

 

Discussion - Comments of committee members related to this option included:

9

Many members were impressed by the focus and consistency of programming at LHS compared
to EAS, and some concern was expressed related to the data and reports at EAS that, despite a
good program overall reflected more problem behaviors by youth and dissonance among staff.

Some members believe that LHS has more readily adopted change, for example through changes
in the behavior management/incentive system, a strong Victim Impact Program, and the Cadet
Achievement Program.

EAS has a vocational program and an APA-approved internship program that would
need to be duplicated at LHS. Note that the department indicates that some changes will occur
in the intern program regardless of this decision. The existing Targeted Reentry
programwith the Boys/Girls Club for Milwaukee youth is another strength of EAS.

The location of EAS provides a considerable advantage in a number of ways (therefore
suggesting it should not be closed) including:

The ability of families and other significant adults to connect (visit, participate in
meetings, etc.) with their child during confinement and/or for purposes of successful
reentry planning.

0 The relative richness of community-based services that could connect directly with youth
while they are still at EAS.

0 That although visitation data does not reflect the desired involvement of families or
substantial differences between the facilities, that closing EAS places greater barriers to
improved family engagement due to the vast majority of youth being from the southeast
quadrant of the state.

0 Staff diversity is a significant concern, and any efforts to increase staff diversity would be
hampered by closing EAS and relying on a less diverse pool of future employees in the
area.

It is important that the ?community? become more involved in overall CI program
efforts, and moving youth to LHS reduces the likelihood that would be occur and, in fact,
contribute to a perception among community members that youth are just being ?sent
away?.

0 Closing EAS adds to eventual higher transportation costs that would be incurred by local
jurisdictions, parents, and the department that are incurred when youth are placed,
transported to court, returned near/to the community for reentry purposes.

Some members note that the length of stay at a Cl is relatively short, making the ?distance?
from home less of an issue, particularly if combined with a reception/reentry program in the
southeast (as recommended by the department).

As noted, current visitation data does not re?ect increased family involvement at EAS even
though it is located substantially closer to their home.

June 2010 30 

 

 

a The department has increased use of videonconferencing and telephone-conferencing to engage
family members in critical case planning as well as maintaining contact with their child. This
capacity will continue to grow and can help ameliorate some of the problems resulting from the
distance to LHS.

9 Closing EAS will promote greater system change than closing LHS in that it is more likely that
alternate resources can be developed in the southeast portion of the state than near LHS. There
is a strong network of privately operated programs in the southeast part of the state that could
be further developed.

a No matter which facility is'closed, a high priority has to be placed by the department on reentry
planning.

9 LHS has a greater capacity forultimate expansion, if needed. The available acreage and
configuration of LHS provides greater ?exibility. Additionally, the facility at LHS is simply
newer, the cottages provide more space for programming, and the eventual operating costs would
be lower.

a The recidivism rates at LHS and EAS are comparable, suggesting that ?distance? or ?closeness?
to home does not appear to have an in?uence on that outcome.

A motion was made to close EAS and support the creation of a reception/reentry program in the
Southeast portion of the state. Three members abstained from voting. Five of the remaining eight
members supported this recommendation. Three members opposed this motion.

Option 8: Closing Lincoln Hills School and Creating a Reentry/Reception Program in North Central
Wisconsin.

This option would move the majority of functions and youth placed at Lincoln Hills School to Ethan
Allen and would open a smaller, specialty secure reception/reentry program within the region of the
state required by statute (north of a line between La Crosse and Manitowoc). The department has
put forth consideration of converting an existing building at Horseshoe Lake to meet that
reentry/reception need. The need for juvenile detention space could perhaps be accommodated
within that program or would need to be developed by counties in the region.

Discussion Discussion of this option was intertwined with discussion of Option 2, so many of the
comments noted in the discussion of Option 2 could be duplicated here. Additional comments made
included: I

a There would be some challenges in closing LHS as it relates to

0 Meeting the state statutory requirement to operate a training school in the northern part
of the state.

0 Operating a reception/reentry program in particular the plan related to reentry would
likely include creating a reentry phase program on the Horseshoe Lake property near
LHS.

Line 20 1 0 3 1 

 

 

 LHS currently does serve as a short-term detention option for youth in the northern part of the
state, albeit on a relatively infrequent basis. The capacity for short-term detention would have
to be developed through local jurisdictions or some form of regional collaboration.

6 The department is pursuing options to access additional funds to support vocational
programming for youth AT LHS.

6 There is a sense that LHS is functioning at a very high level and reflects a more cohesive and
unified program effort than is evident at EAS. As it relates to existing program operations, EAS
would need to make some changes to improve staff cohesiveness and consistency.

A motion was made to close EAS and support the creation of a program that meets the statutory
requirement for a training school in the northern part of the state. Three members abstained from
voting. Three of the remaining eight members supported this recommendation. Five opposed this
motion.

Option 4 - Close one or both facilities and restructure placement of youth from that facility by
creating smaller community based facilities in various regions of the state. Staff from the closed
facilities would be directly involved in the restructuring process.

This option reflects a vision in which the knowledge and capacity of existing staff, working in
partnership with community programs and resources, is used to develop local community-based
options for placement of delinquent youth who might otherwise be placed in a CI. Rather than
Option 2 (or Option 3) in which all youth from the closed facility are moved to the remaining JCI,
this option would require the department to begin working with local resources in Milwaukee)
to create secure programs that now currently do not exist.

Discussion - Discussion of this option included:

a A concern that pursuing this option provides a greater incentive for community groups to become
actively engaged in the future of their youth (compared to continued operation of a larger 01
that is not viewed as part of the community).

Ideally, resources from closing a CI can be redirected to support new types of programs that
meet the needs of the community for safety as well as the youth?s needs.

9 It was noted that in many ways, that network of programs already exists, particularly in the
southeast part of the state, through private group homes, foster homes, and residential care
centers.

9 The most evident gap in the existing regional network of programs is the need for a fully secure
facility. While there are many good, safe non-secure programs, many youth currently sent to
have already been placed at and failed in other residential placements.

a This option is probably a longer-term choice than Option 2 or 3, although it does reflect
discussions by the committee that any initial consolidation is only the beginning of potential
changes in the system.

This option was viewed favorably by many committee members as something to pursue following
initial consolidation. No formal motion was made to adopt this recommendation.

?1

June 2010 32 

 

 

FINAL 

C31

June 20 1 0 3 3 

The committee believes that it is not fiscally 0r programmatically feasible to continue to operate
two male juvenile correctional institutions and that the department should proceed with
consolidation of Ethan Allen and Lincoln Hills as a first step toward significant system change.
Although the vote of the membership is re?ected in the information above, the committee does
not make a formal recommendation as to which JCI should be closed.

The committee recommends that the department appoint an advisory group to assist with
transition/consolidation efforts if/when they occur. This committee may be made up of parents,
county staff, service providers, members of the faith community, youth advocates, or others who
have a stake in the success of the transition. The immediate purpose of the advisory group is to
assist the department in making a transition that maintains the high quality of existing
programs and supports communications with critical stakeholders.

The committee recommends that following the transition/consolidation attention he turned to a
collaborative process with counties to revisit opportunities for continued improvements in the
juvenile justice system including improvements in the Youth Aids funding system and
potentially suggesting alternative funding options.

The committee recommends that additional fiscal measures be taken to lower or slow the rate of
growth in the daily rate(s), including: (1) utilizing funds from general school aids to pay an
appropriate share of the school costs at the institutions, (2) funds generated through
participation in the federally supported school breakfast/lunch program be applied as revenue to
the division, and (3) appropriate fixed operational costs utilities and maintenance costs) be
supported by general program revenue rather than being included in the daily rate(s).

The Committee commends DJ Administrator Margaret Carpenter for the changes that have
been made over the last 18-20 months in the division and makes a recommendation that
Margaret Carpenter be retained as DJ Administrator in the next administration.