The Connecticut Juvenile Justice

African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities, Inc.

Merva Jackson

Casey Family Services

Sania Metzger

Casey Foundation

Ray Torres

Catholic Charities

Alice Farrell

Center for Children’s Advocacy

AnnMarie DeGraffenreidt (Committee Co-chair)

Martha Stone

Community Partners in Action

Maureen Price

Community Solutions, Inc.

Kitty Tyrol

Connecticut Center for Effective Practive

Robert Franks

Connecticut Certification Board

Tammy Rothschild

Connecticut Junior Republic representing the Connecticut Children’s League

John Boyd (Committee Co-chair)

Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance

Fernando Muniz (Committee Co-chair)

Connecticut Voices for Children

Jason Pielemeier

Theresa Sgobba

Connecticut Youth Services Association

Mary Roche-Cronin

Department of Correction

Lora Castronova

Karen Oien

Donna Wnuk

Lynn Choquette

Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services

Peter Rockholz (Committee Co-chair)

East Granby Public Schools

Robert Kozaczka

Hall-Brooke Behavioral Health Services

Robyn Goldman

Hartford Public Schools

Nicole Jones

Institute of Living

Maritza Lugo-Stalker

Judicial Court Operations

Cynthia Cunningham

Judicial External Affairs

Deborah Fuller

Judicial Legal Services

Nancy Porter

Justice Education Center

Sherry Haller

Mount Saint John representing the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits

Cathi Coridan

North American Family Institute

Amy Schukoske

Lynn Bishop

Office of the Attorney General

Susan Pearlman

Office of the Child Advocate

Jeanne Milstein

Mickey Kramer

George Hayes

Office of the Chief Public Defender

Susan O. Storey

Cynthia Clancy

Michael Walker

Christine Rapillo

Office of Policy and Management

John Mengacci (Committee Co-chair)

Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities

Jose Centeno

Office of the Chief State’s Attorney

Fran Carino (Committee Co-chair)

Office of the Victim Advocate

Jim Papillo

Star Mentoring

Fay Evans

State Department of Education

George Dowaliby

Peter Prowda

State Legislature

Representative Toni Walker

Representative Gail Hamm

Toni Thorpe

The Tow Foundation

Diane Sierpina

Emily Tow Jackson

The Waterbury Youth Services System, Inc.

Kelly Cronin

University of Connecticut Health Center, Department of Correctional Managed Care

Vicki DesCouteaux

University of Connecticut Health Center, Department of Psychiatry

Janet Williams

University of Connecticut School of Nursing

Deborah Shelton

Yale Behavioral Health

Scott Migdole

Attachment C

Listening Sessions Summary - Spring 2005

In support of the joint plan developed by DCF and CSSD to address issues in the juvenile justice system, listening sessions were held at five Connecticut cities (Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Waterbury, and Norwich) in the Spring of 2005. The purpose of these listening sessions was to hear from parents, children and youth with experience in the juvenile justice system. Participants were asked to discuss how they or their children became involved in juvenile justice and what solutions are needed to improve the system. Also attending these sessions were personnel from DCF, CSSD, local school systems, and the police, as well as judges. These personnel were asked to listen rather than speak or present information during the sessions. A total of 456 parents, children, youth, policy makers, school personnel, and providers attended these sessions.

Inadequate special education services in the schools and a practice of dealing with behavioral issues by expelling children or calling the police were the most frequently cited reasons for juvenile justice involvement. In particular, parents noticed that children with Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder were frequently suspended for impulse behaviors. Also, the lack of appropriate treatment for children with autism in Connecticut was cited as a problem leading to juvenile justice involvement. Parents often reported that the offenses for which children were arrested were minor, such as arguing or breach of peace.

Parents reported that the “School to Juvenile Justice “ pathway starts with schools suggesting to parents to file a Family With Service Needs (FWSN) complaint with the Court when the child has a behavioral issue. Some children are referred for FWSN when voluntary services are not available through the Department of Children and Families. For others, parents reported that behaviors escalated while they were on a waiting list for services. Consequently, the child was arrested by the police. Particularly troubling was the fact that parents often did not understand that a FWSN referral put the child at risk for a court order. Parents frequently believed entering the juvenile justice system was just another way to get mental health services for their child. The belief that racial bias plays an integral role in the system was clear. It was reported that a call to the police by the school or in the community was more likely in certain neighborhoods, and for children of color.

Other themes emerged as reasons for involvement in the juvenile justice system. Parents and youth spoke about the lack of after school activities, of appropriate day care for younger children, and of job training and employment. Some quotes from parents and youth from the sessions include:

“There was not a place to keep her safe. She was suicidal and ended up in detention.”
“While waiting for voluntary services to begin, my child was arrested. I was then charged with neglect and abandonment for leaving my child with the police.”
“Teachers need to have more respect for parents and their rights and need to make more efforts to work with children with disabilities. Calling for police to remove a child is not a solution.”

Needed solutions discussed in the listening sessions can be summarized as follows:

Better special education services in schools.
Professional development for school personnel on handling behavior issues.
Better evaluation of children in all systems.
More after school activities so that children and youth are safe and engaged in appropriate activities.
Life skills and job training for youth, including better job training as part of transition planning.
Review and revision of school board disciplinary and zero tolerance policies.
Monitor whether schools are notifying parents regarding disciplinary actions at school (notification of suspension and length of suspension).
Address substance abuse issues with appropriate programs and treatments.
Increase funding for mentoring (mentoring was most frequently mentioned as a program that worked for youth).
Parenting skills training for children having children.
Train police about children and youth with mental health needs and autism.
Train police to direct families to the right services and supports, including family organizations.
Connect Community Collaboratives with children and youth in the juvenile justice system.
Increase funding of community-based services, including nontraditional services, to eliminate waiting lists.
Better identify mental health needs when children are put in detention.
Inform parents about their rights in the juvenile justice system and require police to notify parents when their child becomes involved with the police.
Make mental health services more accountable for positive outcomes.
Use community programs instead of detention and keep kids connected to their families.
Appoint parents to the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC).
Promote collaboration between the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) to provide appropriate services for children with autism and pervasive developmental disorder.
Find corporate sponsorship for youth and mentoring programs.
Develop youth leadership programs to build positive youth development and deal with violence.
Work to improve neighborhoods where violence and drug dealing are prevalent.
Provide follow up and services after release from the juvenile justice system or residential treatment.
PREVENTION, PREVENTION, PREVENTION.

Attachment D

Resource and Inventory Assessment Subcommittee

The challenges for the Resource and Inventory Assessment Subcommittee were wide and varied. It was necessary to address duplication of services, contradictory case plans, costly repeat interventions, and lost opportunities to plan for a continuum of service delivery across multiple youth serving systems—particularly within the Department of Children and Families and the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch—focused on success with long term outcomes. Therefore, the work of the Subcommittee involved an inventory of programs and services; a comparative analysis of missions, mandates, and policies; identification of best practices nationally and locally; determination of the use of assessment instruments; review and analysis of the case flow process; and exploration of training and workforce development for personnel in both systems.

To accomplish these important tasks, workgroups were created to address specific topics. These groups and their focus areas included:

1) Service and Programmatic Resources,

2) Case Flow Process/Assessment Instruments,

3) Current Initiatives,

4) Community/Family/Youth Voice, and

5) Workforce Development – Staff Training.

The Service and Programmatic Resources Workgroup was given the task of identifying all of the resources available to children in the juvenile justice system in Connecticut and conducting an analysis about the strengths and gaps in services. Through a combined effort to poll service providers and advocates, along with a search utilizing Infoline, the workgroup was able to compile a list of available programs and services available to children in the juvenile justice system. Using this information, the following preliminary conclusions were drawn: there is a countless number of programs in the state serving children and families, but programs are not well-coordinated or necessarily known by agency staff; long waiting lists exist for programs; there is a lack of in-state services for certain populations; there is an urgent need for funding of strength- based, non-clinical programs; and there is a lack of meaningful workforce development programming and training for children and for staff.

The Case Flow Process and Assessment Instruments Workgroup was established to generate flow charts outlining how children and families involved with both DCF and CSSD move through the system. During this analysis, points of interface and possible collaboration were identified. Areas of potential barriers were also highlighted. Additionally, the workgroup identified internal assessments and screening tools that exist in both departments and highlighted gaps in the variety of assessments used. The analysis found that: there is insufficient communication between DCF and CSSD; there are opposing goals and objectives among the agencies; there is inconsistent implementation of collaborative efforts, specifically the FWSN Protocol; and there is a lack of knowledge of the mission and mandates of the other agency.

In an effort to examine current and ongoing work in the state, the Current Initiatives Workgroup conducted an inventory of initiatives focusing on juvenile justice issues. The group considered both work internal to DCF and CSSD as well as that generated outside the agencies. In total, the group identified fifty-three separate initiatives in fifteen different areas. Out of the total initiatives discovered, six topical areas with universal support from DCF, CSSD, and the advocacy community were identified. These areas are Evidence-based Practices, Gender-specific Programming for Girls, Medical and Mental Health Issues, Prevention, Research, and Trauma Responsivity. The previous work of these initiatives was utilized to inform the overall action strategies and recommendations developed by the subcommittee.

A series of listening sessions were held throughout the state over a three-month period. Convened by the Community/Family/Youth Voice Workgroup, these sessions were held at Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury, Norwich, and Bridgeport. Each listening session was convened by a local advocacy group and coordinated by FAVOR and AFCAMP. Members of the Executive Committee attended each session. Parents, families, and community members were invited to provide feedback regarding the juvenile justice system, including ways to improve the system, identification of gaps in services, improvement of communication between agencies and families, and opportunities to increase parental involvement. Some of the overarching themes that emerged from the listening sessions included the following: a need for families to be better informed; a need for greater emphasis on “front-end” services (prevention, early intervention); a need for increased focus on job training, readiness and life skills for children and parents; a need for schools, DCF, and the police to coordinate to divert youth and identify mental health and other needs; a need for an improved, culturally competent approach to working with families and delivering services; and a need for the integration of traditional and non-traditional services.

The Workforce Development-Staff Training Workgroup consisted primarily of probation and parole officers, as well as social workers. Meetings were convened to examine some of the barriers that exist to improving the relationship between DCF and CSSD. The primary focus of the workgroup was to identify solutions for improving working relationships between the staff of each agency. Some of the barriers identified included the following: a lack of understanding of agency mandates and missions; a perceived attitude of “dumping” children from one agency to another; inconsistency in staff; misunderstandings regarding available mental health services; and feelings of mistrust between staff.

Through the combined efforts of the many workgroups, the Resource and Inventory Assessment Subcommittee developed the following findings and goals:

Finding #1: The current delivery system is not well coordinated or accessible to children and families when and where they need it.

Goal #1: Develop a service continuum driven by the needs of the child and family.

Finding #2: We miss opportunities to support families and children in their communities, which can lead to unnecessary and/or further involvement in the juvenile justice system and consistent problems with disproportionate minority contact.

Goal #2: Programs, policies, and procedures will be in place to reduce the number of children entering the juvenile justice system, to eliminate the overrepresentation of children and youth of color, and to improve outcomes for those children and youth already involved.

Finding #3: There is limited and ineffective communication among stakeholders that impedes success.

Goal #3: Communication between agencies, families, providers, and communities needs to be improved.

Finding #4: The public and private workforce is limited in meeting the needs of the community. Barriers exist in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining staff who can serve the diverse needs of the children, youth, families, and communities of Connecticut.

Goal #4: The workforce of both agencies and their contracted providers needs to be strengthened and supported.

The action strategies and recommendations in the joint strategic plan reflect the considerable efforts of the Resource and Inventory Assessment Subcommittee to address the identified findings and goals.

Attachment E

Data and Information Management Subcommittee

To effectively administer a fair, just, and equitable juvenile justice system, it is necessary to examine appropriate data and critical case management information regarding the population served. When multiple agencies are involved with a specific child and family, their ability to promptly, easily, and accurately share data and information affects the outcomes for that child. The ability to share both case specific and aggregate data between DCF and CSSD is an important aspect of a joint strategic plan and was included in the list of focus areas for consideration:

Development of an interagency data collection system to monitor progress.

Improvement and integration of data collection, management, and information systems.
Continued development and refinement of a joint data tracking system which includes information collection at each critical juncture of the juvenile justice system; development of an operational definition of race and ethnicity and standardized information collection and analysis of race and ethnicity data; and consistent reporting of incidents by public and private residential programs serving juvenile offenders.
Development of a joint quality assurance system, which includes assessment of incidents and incident reporting to ensure consistent application of rewards and sanctions for all juveniles; assessment of program effectiveness; and identification of available and needed resources.

The Data and Management Information Subcommittee was charged with addressing these focus areas within the plan. To accomplishment this goal, the subcommittee engaged in the following activities:

Identified existing data systems and their contents and makeup.
Reviewed child data record lists to determine sharable information elements.
Identified one-time and recurring reports.
Posed questions concerning current data sharing processes and practices through the use of a survey.
Examined the responses to the data sharing survey questions.

The group met each month over the nine-month planning period and engaged in a variety of activities to gather and analyze information. Initially, the subcommittee completed an inventory of data systems utilized in the juvenile justice system and related agencies including LINK, CONDOIT, and CMIS. The inventory included information such as where these databases are housed, who has access, and what data elements are included. The inventory also assessed currently available data for information sharing through the CMIS/CONDOIT interface. The examination covered various one-time reports regarding specific aspects of the system (girls services, mental health and juvenile justice, DMC, etc.). One outcome of the review was the development of a list of suggested aggregate measures for ongoing management reports that can be used to gauge progress toward achieving outcomes of the strategic plan. Where barriers, obstacles, and impediments to data and information sharing were identified, the subcommittee members made recommendations for examination and solutions. The work of the Legal Analysis Subcommittee significantly informed the work of the Data and Management Information Subcommittee.

To gain a clear picture of existing barriers to sharing information, a survey of a wide range of individuals, including administrators, middle management and line staff, was conducted. This survey was done in conjunction with a similar instrument utilized by the Legal Analysis Subcommittee. Forty–six respondents represented probation, detention, parole, prosecutors, public defenders, and others. The respondents answered questions regarding information sharing processes, existing barriers to sharing information, and identification of additional elements necessary to be shared.

In addition, a focus group of probation and parole officers and case managers was convened. A variety of themes emerged from the survey and focus group:

The majority of information shared is background information.
Most of the information is shared at the time of intake.
Almost no information is shared electronically.
Most information is shared verbally and informally.
Respondents are unsure as to what information they can and cannot share.
There is a need to develop ongoing surveys in this area to determine levels of communication across agencies in the system.

Once the analysis phase was complete, the group compiled a list of the following findings and goals:

Finding #1: There is a limited capacity to analyze the data available to DCF and CSSD in a meaningful way.

Goal #1: Additional infrastructure is needed to develop uses for the data available to DCF and CSSD, and to analyze the information in a meaningful way so it is useful to management, policy makers, and advocates.

Finding #2: An efficient, reliable, and consistent mechanism for sharing information does not exist.

Goal #2: Information must pass seamlessly and promptly among multiple users and for multiple purposes.

Finding #3: Mistrust and a lack of understanding exist between agencies with regard to sharing information about individual cases.

Goal #3: A positive peer culture program with defined goals must be developed to enable members of DCF and CSSD to get to know each other better and to build trust.

Based on the review of existing data and the collection and ability to share data and information, this subcommittee has made recommendations for change regarding new or existing protocols, policies, and procedures that will enhance interagency collaboration and improve outcomes for children, youth, and families.

Attachment F

Legal Analysis Subcommittee

The responsibility of the Legal Analysis Subcommittee was two-fold. First, the subcommittee worked to identify the law, policy, and procedures influencing the work done by the various entities within the juvenile justice system. Second, the subcommittee sought to identify the real and perceived barriers that impact coordination and effective service delivery within the juvenile justice system.

The subcommittee held its first meeting in February of 2005, welcoming members from a variety of agencies and entities involved with the juvenile justice system. There was representation from the Department of Children and Families (DCF), the Court Support Services Division (CSSD), the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney (juvenile prosecution), the Office of the Chief Public Defender (juvenile defense), Judicial Legal Services, the Department of Correction, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Child Advocate, and the Center for Children’s Advocacy. As the work progressed, additional members joined to provide essential representation from the State Department of Education and local education agencies, Yale Behavioral Health, and research organizations, such as the Connecticut Center for Effective Practice.

The subcommittee met monthly and, during the course of its work, identified several issues of interest and importance. Early on, however, the members agreed that the primary focus would be law, policy, and procedure in regard to information sharing. It was recognized that the system can be negatively impacted when incomplete information is obtained or information is not shared in a timely manner. The ineffective sharing of information can have an adverse effect on a child and family needing services, or a juvenile justice system responsible for the administration of justice and the protection of the community. The choice to prioritize the issue of information sharing was endorsed by top level administrators and legal counsel who were consulted for guidance at the outset of the project.

Once the scope of work was defined, the members were assigned tasks to be completed outside of each monthly meeting. First, members were asked to compile relevant resources. This included the identification and organization of pertinent materials, such as statutes, agency policies, interagency Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), and any documents outlining information sharing procedures. These were submitted to the CWLA legal consultant for organization, initial analysis, and distribution.

Second, the subcommittee engaged in qualitative research. Interviews were held with top level administrators and/or legal counsel from agencies participating in the development of the plan. In addition, the subcommittee developed a questionnaire and distributed it among stakeholders working at various levels within each of the participating agencies. The questionnaire asked respondents to consider how statutes, policies, and practices effect their ability to do their job within the juvenile justice system. The questionnaire was not intended to produce scientifically valid results, but rather to enhance the understanding of the subcommittee members with regard to perceptions and practice.

Forty-eight surveys were completed and the results were reviewed and analyzed in light of the compiled legal, policy, and procedural materials and the previously conducted interviews with agency leadership. From this combination of qualitative and legal research, the subcommittee articulated a set of findings to guide the development of strategic goals.

Findings

The Legal Analysis Subcommittee identified three overarching issues impeding effective collaboration on behalf of children and families involved in the juvenile justice system:

Lack of clarity and consistency of legal and policy guidelines for sharing information.
Fear of legal liability and ethical considerations with regard to information sharing.
Differing missions and goals among agencies.

Within the context of these overarching issues, the subcommittee articulated a more specific list of findings to facilitate the development of strategic goals and action steps. The

findings are as follows:

Some agency policies lack clarity, thus impeding information sharing.
Some statutes lack clarity and/or conflict, thus impeding information sharing.

Significant ethical, legal, and administrative barriers to the sharing of information exist between the education system and other state agencies.
There is a lack of understanding among staff regarding other agencies’ roles, responsibilities, and mandates, which creates challenges to coordination and collaboration.
Effective collaborative procedures are in place in Connecticut, such as the Case Review Teams.
Current models of collaboration still struggle with certain issues such as staffing, appropriate use of protocols, communication between agencies, and access to services.
Agencies, the Court, and counsel are not always notified when a child or family are involved with multiple agencies, thus hindering or delaying the coordination of efforts.
Each public or private agency that collects information on children and families can have a different standard for what defines a legally sufficient release, causing difficulty and delay in acquiring needed information.
There is a lack of legal support for DCF staff which appear in court on behalf of DCF-involved children in delinquency or FWSN matters.
When DCF prepares a report for the Court, DCF can no longer release it without the Court’s permission, thus restricting access to what is often the most direct compilation of information relevant to the child’s case.
The court is inappropriately used as a mechanism for accessing services.

In response to these findings, the Legal Analysis Subcommittee developed several goals and strategies for addressing information sharing concerns, supporting collaborative efforts, and strengthening the legal framework supporting the juvenile justice system. These goals and strategies were woven throughout the strategic plan. In addition, the Legal Analysis Subcommittee has summarized some of its work below to inform the continued identification and analysis of legal and policy issues contemplated in the strategic plan.

First, to facilitate efficient and appropriate information sharing, the following statutory changes are recommended for review by DCF, CSSD, and any interagency group established under this plan:

CGS 17a-28 should be amended to clarify the basis upon which DCF shares information pre-adjudication.

o DCF would like to broaden the ability to share information with correction and juvenile justice personnel, while recognizing that information shared prior to adjudication could adversely affect the defense. Any proposed statutory change must balance the rights of the child with the duty to provide services.

CGS 46b-124 can be ambiguous in its guidelines and should therefore be clarified.

o Many terms are used interchangeably, when only one is defined. The workgroup suggests that revisions of this statute include focusing on using terms that are defined within the statute consistently throughout the statute. If a term is defined elsewhere within the CGS, the explicit reference to that statutory section should occur so that the term’s meaning is clear.

o To ensure ease of access and consistency of release, the statute should require that the judiciary designate specific individuals as contacts for persons seeking the release of juvenile matters records.

o Decisions concerning inconsistencies between Practice Book and statutory requirements must also be made. For example, PB 30-9 places restrictions on information available to the parent or guardian, while the same restriction is absent in the statute.

o In the section listing exceptions, the Board of Pardons and Parole should be replaced with the Department of Correction (DOC), as the Board is part of DOC. Also, DOC may not be viewed by all as falling within the law enforcement exception. This should be clarified, as it may account for why DOC does not consistently receive documents from the court, such as arrest records and probation reports.

o Some form of positive identification for parents/guardians requesting records pursuant to CGS 46b-124(b)(2)(B) and CGS 46b-124(d)(ii) should be required, as it is of the subject of the record in CGS 46b-124(b)(2)(G) and CGS 46b-124(d)(iii).

o The terms “facility,” “escape,” and “commitment,” as they are used in the section concerning escape (within CGS 46b-124), should be defined.

CGS 46b-133 should be amended to include express authorization for police to disclose/give notice to “other suitable person.” Accordingly, the Practice Book 30-4 should be amended to add the phrase “other suitable person.”
CGS 10-233i should be amended to add language requiring the superintendent of the district in which the child resides to inform the superintendent of the district or the head of the school where the child attends, if it is other than where the child resides.
While the workgroup recognizes that the Practice Book rules are constrained by statute, it recommends that the phrase “brought before the judicial authority,” in PB section 30a-8 could create the misunderstanding within the non-legal community that a child’s record is not confidential depending upon how this phrase is interpreted. Therefore, the workgroup recommends that this phrase be eliminated from this section.

Second, the Legal Analysis Subcommittee identified several broader issues that impact the juvenile justice system and should be considered by the interagency groups established by the strategic plan as suggested areas for policy or legislative reform.

Newly passed FWSN legislation.
Rewording of the erasure statute (46b-146) so that it reflects the true legislative intent and is not subject to misinterpretation.
Ensuring that prosecutors and judges take into consideration treatment recommendations when handling a case.
Existing statutes for programs and procedures that require clarification, such as Serious Juvenile Repeat Offenders and Serious Sex Offender Prosecution.
Reviewing the process of parole revocation: when it happens, how it happens, and what the result is.
Issues related to HIPAA, including concepts such as minimum necessary, psychotherapy notes, and release of information.
Clarifying when students are entitled to having a surrogate parent appointed and whether the need for such an appointment is limited to those students receiving services under IDEA or whether it should be expanded to students suspected of having a disability under IDEA, as well as students receiving services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Third, the Legal Analysis Subcommittee recommended the development of a tool for informing and instructing staff on information sharing guidelines. The subcommittee envisioned the creation of a field guide and considered various formats. A prototype for an interactive field guide and training tool was developed by Co-Chair Fran Carino, and a snapshot is provided below.

For further information, contact Fran Carino, Supervisory Juvenile Prosecutor, in the Office of the Chief State's Attorney..

Finally, several members of the Legal Analysis Subcommittee undertook the task of beginning to identify and analyze state statutes providing guidelines on information sharing. The subcommittee believes this work to be a valuable starting point for the work of the recommended interagency team. The preliminary summary is provided as Attachment L.

Attachment H

Summary of Relevant Recommendations from Existing Reports on

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

Support the development of urban Juvenile Review Boards (JRBs) at Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Waterbury, in an effort to reduce the number of children of color entering the juvenile justice system by diverting them to community-based alternatives. At this time, JRBs exist primarily in suburban settings. Funding for urban JRBs should be issued from the relevant municipality, the Department of Children and Families, the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch, the Connecticut Department of Correction, the State Department of Education, and philanthropic organizations.

When creating JRBs, it is essential to ensure that the eligibility and compliance criteria applied are consistent, regardless of the geographical location of the board.

Support programs to divert children who are identified as having behavioral needs from the juvenile justice system to programs that provide appropriate treatment, including specialized treatment for children with a history of trauma. Also support efforts to coordinate with the KidCare program of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and other evidence-based, culturally competent, gender-specific initiatives (based on the findings of the Commission’s 2003 police survey in which responding departments expressed a need for increased diversion services for young people, especially those with behavioral/mental health needs).
Conduct an analysis to determine if there is disparity in the racial composition of children serviced by the mental health system compared to children serviced through the juvenile justice system.
Develop and recommend funding for alternative program interventions for children and youth from Families With Service Needs (FWSNs) and Youth in Crisis (YICs). Program interventions might include expansion of emergency shelters, priority access to specialized residential beds, emergency foster care placements, supportive housing, home and community-based services, intensive case management, therapeutic foster care, intensive family support and respite services, and crisis response teams.
Include a specific reference to CGS §10-198a, the statute that articulates what local boards of education are required to do prior to filing a complaint in Superior Court-Juvenile Matters concerning a student who is truant in CGS §46b-149. This will make it clear that CGS §10-198a is a jurisdictional requirement. CGS §46b-149 is already referenced in CGS §10-198a.

CGS §10-198a should also be amended to give school boards the option of filing an educational neglect petition rather than a FWSN petition when it is clear that the child is either chronologically too young to have the capacity to get to school without parental assistance, or is without that capacity due to other reasons.

Endorse and review the efforts of the Department of Children and Families and the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch to develop a juvenile justice plan, having as its goal the reduction of the number of African-Americans and Latinos/Hispanics in the juvenile justice system, and to include community service options in lieu of detention for juveniles arrested.
Establish a plan, with timetables, for the further development of existing curricula for training of employees and state contractors at all levels of the juvenile justice system on issues of cultural competency and strategies to address disproportionate minority confinement.
Establish a plan, with timetables, to address any barriers to family involvement in alternatives to incarceration.
Promote, establish, and/or expand truancy reduction programs in schools, the Department of Children and Families, the Office of the Child Advocate, and the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch.
Recommend that the Department of Children and Families, the Office of the Child Advocate, and the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch promote restorative justice models for juveniles.
Recommend that the Department of Children and Families and the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch develop a semi-annual report that identifies the race, ethnicity, and gender of children who are:

Detained on a pre-trial basis
Receive court-based assessments, juvenile justice intermediate evaluations, and Riverview evaluations
Sentenced to probation
Committed as a delinquent and placed in residential treatment
Committed as a delinquent and placed in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School

· This semi-annual report should also contain evidence of the parties’ joint efforts to remedy instances of disparity at all five of the decision points identified above. The final report (not draft) should be issued to legislative leaders, the Commissioner of Department of Children and Families, the Executive Director of Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch, the Office of Policy and Management, and the Office of the Child Advocate.

Police agencies should document all law enforcement contacts with juveniles, including contacts that did not result in an arrest.
The Judicial Branch should limit the list of Serious Juvenile Offenses (SJOs) for which juvenile offenders may be admitted to detention without approval by a judge to those that involve weapons or substantial risk of serious injury.
Police agencies should attempt to release all juveniles to a parent, guardian, or other responsible party, and document the reasons why this cannot happen, before transporting any juvenile to detention.
The Judicial Branch should train qualified detention staff to administer a validated and unbiased risk and needs assessment designed to determine the suitability of the juvenile to be released that will be provided to the court at the initial detention hearing.
The General Assembly should revise state law to mandate written findings by the judge at every 15-day detention hearing with no right of waiver of this mandate by juveniles or their attorneys. The written findings should include reasons why juveniles cannot be placed at home or in less restrictive environments.
DCF and CSSD should ensure that the residential programs serving juvenile offenders have clear and consistent incident reporting processes to ensure uniform application of rewards and sanctions for all juveniles.
Juvenile justice agencies, both public and private, should ensure that the numbers of minority employees at all levels closely reflect the numbers of minority juveniles served by the agency.
Juvenile justice agencies should include consideration of a candidate’s ability and experience in working well with persons of differing races, cultures, and languages in hiring, job performance review, and promotional policies.
DCF and CSSD shall ensure that the juvenile justice agencies with which they contract ensure that employees at all levels are culturally aware and able to work well with persons of differing races and cultures.

· DCF and the Judicial Department shall ensure that all employees within the respective agency and department, including commissioners, administrators, judges, attorneys, and line staff, are culturally aware and able to work well with persons of differing races and cultures.

Juvenile justice agencies should present clear, complete, and consistent information on referral, program, and placement alternatives, as well as on agency procedures, to juveniles and their parents/guardians/attorneys so that they can be active and informed participants in juvenile justice system handling decisions.

Attachment J

National Best Practices

The issues faced by the State of Connecticut juvenile justice system are not unlike those facing the rest of the country. Juvenile courts and juvenile justice systems nationwide struggle to deal with social issues presented by those who cross the threshold into their doorways. These problems include dysfunctional families, substance abuse, serious mental health problems, school failure, traumatic and violent life occurrences, poverty, gang membership, sexual exploitation, crime-ridden neighborhoods, and diminishing budgets coupled with the a demand for accountability. The unambiguous conclusion is that courts and criminal justice systems do not possess the solutions to all of these problems, yet are often tasked with the care and custody of children and youth burdened with these difficulties. There have been advancements in programming, however, that hold promise for communities to be involved in the solution to problems faced by children, youth, and families.

Since 1992, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has demonstrated that communities can develop and establish effective strategies to deal with juvenile detention crowding by the development of community-based alternatives to secure detention with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). The objectives of JDAI are to reduce the number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately detained; to minimize the number of children who fail to appear in court or re-offend pending adjudication; to redirect public funds toward successful reform strategies; and to improve conditions of confinement. The Casey “Pathways” series provides practical information for understanding and implementing juvenile detention reform, as well as how an objective use of risk criteria can reduce the rate of minority overrepresentation in secure detention facilities.

The Community Justice Network for Youth (CJNY) is a national network of community-based programs, grassroots organizations, service-providing agencies, residential facilities, and advocacy groups that focus their work on youth of color. The CJNY functions as a support network for organizers and direct-care practitioners who are working with youth who are at risk or already involved in the juvenile or criminal justice systems. This network is an outcome of the W. Haywood Burns Institute, which focuses on specific issues affecting youth of color in the juvenile justice system, such as the juvenile death penalty, school discipline policies, and mental health matters. Additionally, the Burns Institute works intensively with local jurisdictions to reduce the overrepresentation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system by leading a group of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders through a data-driven, consensus-based process.

The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado has promulgated eleven “Blueprints” (1998, Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/) which detail field-tested effective programs to guide communities that seek to prevent and address problems related to juvenile crime and at-risk behavior. The 11 programs are Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation, Incredible Years Training Series, Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies, Bullying Prevention Program, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, Life Skills Training, Midwestern Prevention Project, Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), and Project Towards No Drug Abuse.

Diversion programs with an emphasis on a variety of services such as family and individual counseling, academic tutoring and group education, and recreation have proven to be effective in keeping youth out of institutions (Lipsey, “Can Rehabilitative Programs Reduce the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders? An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Practical Programs,” 1999, The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law). Citizen volunteers used in conjunction with regular probation supervision also form a promising program for keeping youth in their home communities. The Neighborhood Accountability Board (NAB), a Santa Clara, California juvenile diversion program, is an example of an effective restorative justice program that involves law enforcement, schools, neighborhoods, victims, and families of youth who work side-by-side to transform individuals and communities.

Intensive supervision programs (ISP) work in partnership with community agencies, families, and probation staff to promote opportunities for change through expanded services, increased contact, and strong standards and expectations of accountability for youth involved with the juvenile justice system. Intensive probation services, such as the Cook County, Illinois juvenile court program, work to meet the needs of juvenile offenders by engaging them in educational programs, community service, home confinement, restitution, and other sanction management programs so that youth may remain in their home communities.

Other alternative probation services, such as day treatment programs, can provide adventure-based programming enhanced with educational supports to keep youth in their home communities. The Associated Marine Institutes (AMI) program, based in Florida, has been operating since 1969, and provides a seven-day per week educational program for youth referred by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. This and other community rehabilitation programs stress education and vocational training in helping to keep at-risk youth out of the juvenile justice system. The long-running AMI programs have demonstrated some of the lowest post-program recidivism rates in the state of Florida.

These are but a few examples of how courts and juvenile justice systems are improving their proficiency by brokering other agencies and organizations to aid in solving the complex and often troubling issues facing children, youth, and their families. Some of these programs are included within the joint strategic plan. Other jurisdictions have shown that building relationships with community partners and providing services that have meaning to children and youth will help minimize involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Attachment L

Connecticut General Statutes – Information Sharing

This table is a starting point for the legal and policy work that will continue as a part of the implementation of the joint strategic plan. The table outlines the beginning of the process to identify how Connecticut’s statutes can support the appropriate sharing of information between juvenile justice system partners.

Section	Title	Can be released? To whom?	If so, under what circumstances?	If so, what procedure must be followed?
*10-186*	Duties of local and regional boards of education regarding school attendance.	Yes, to State Board of Education.	If a student or parent appeals the child's denial of school accommodations.	The local or regional board of education shall forward the record of the hearing within 10 days of receipt of notice of the appeal.
*10-209 (a)*	Records not to be public. Provision of reports to schools.	No.	No record of any medical examination made or filed under the provisions of sections 10-205, 10-206, 10-207, 10-214, or of any psychological examination made under the supervision or at the request of the BOE shall be open to public inspection.
*10-209 (b)*	Records not to be public. Provision of reports to schools.	Yes, to the designated representative of the local or regional school district.	When a child seeks to enroll in a school.	Health care providers providing assessments and immunizations shall provide reports to school district.
*10-233g*	Reports of principals to police authority concerning physical assaults on school employees by students.	Yes, to police authority.	When a student assaults a school employee.	Principal shall report such physical assault to local police.
*10-233h*	Arrested students. Reports by police, disclosure, confidentiality, police testimony at expulsion hearings.	Yes, to principal and special services staff.	When an enrolled student is arrested for a violation of section 53-206c, a class A misdemeanor or felony.	Information is confidential in accordance with 46b-124. Superintendent may disclose to principal. Principal may disclose to special services staff.
*10-233i*	Students placed on probation by court.	Yes, to the court.	When a student, placed on probation by the court, returns to school on a conditional basis.	Superintendents must provide information on school attendance, adjustment and behavior, recommendations for conditions for disposition or sentencing.
*10-233k*	Notification of school officials about potentially dangerous students. Provision of educational records of children returning to school from detention centers.	Yes, to principal and special services staff.	If DCF believes there's a risk of imminent personal injury to others by a child in its custody.	DCF to notify superintendent where child will be returning or was attending prior to adjudication. Superintendent shall notify appropriate principal that child is potentially dangerous. Principal may notify special services staff.
*17a-77*	Availability of records.	Yes, to counsel.	Upon receipt of application for commitment of mentally ill child.	Counsel for child and parent shall have access to all records.
*17a-101b*	Oral report by mandated reporter. Notification of law enforcement agency when allegation of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse occurs.	Yes, to DCF Commissioner and law enforcement.	Within 12 hours of when mandated reporter has reasonable cause to suspect a child has been abused or neglected or placed in imminent risk of serious harm.	Mandated reporter shall make an oral report by telephone or in person to the Commissioner of DCF or a law enforcement agency. If law enforcement receives report, they shall immediately notify the Commissioner of DCF. If the Commissioner receives the report, she must immediately inform law enforcement. See 17a-101d for contents.
*17a-101c*	Written report by mandated reporter.	Yes, to DCF Commissioner and law enforcement.	Within 48 hours of filing oral report, reporter shall submit a written report.	Report shall be submitted to the Commissioner of DCF and others.* See 17a-101d for contents.
*17a-101g*	Classification and evaluation of reports. Referral to local law enforcement authority. Removal of child in imminent risk of harm.	Yes, to DCF and appropriate law enforcement authorities.	Upon receipt of report of child abuse or neglect. If the abuse or neglect is such that the perpetrator is not a) a person responsible for such child's health, b) a person given access to such child by such responsible person or c) a person entrusted with the care of such child, the DCF Commissioner or his designee, then the DCF Commissioner shall refer the report to the appropriate law enforcement authority.	Report shall be in writing.
*17a-101i*	Abuse of child by school employee or staff member of public or private institution or facility providing care for children.	Yes, to superintendents, Commissioner of Education.	If a child has been abused by a school employee or staff member.	DCF Commissioner shall provide records concerning the investigation, whether or not created by the Department, to the employing superintendent who shall then suspend such school employee.
*17a-101j*	Notification of law enforcement and prosecutorial authority when reasonable belief of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse.	Yes, to the appropriate local law enforcement agency, Chief State's Attorney or designee, or state's attorney in the state where the child resides.	If, after an investigation, the DCF Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that sexual or serious physical abuse has occurred.	A report must be made pursuant to 17a-101a to 17a-101c inclusive and 17a-103. After investigation, if reasonable cause exists to believe abuse or neglect has occurred, the commissioner provides records to the state agency responsible for licensure and provides records.
*17a-103*	Reports by others. False reports. Notification to law enforcement agency.	Yes, to the appropriate law enforcement agency.	If the DCF Commissioner receives a report alleging sexual abuse or serious physical abuse.	Notification shall be made to the appropriate law enforcement agency within twenty-four hours of the receipt of such report.
*17a-106a*	Multidisciplinary teams. Confidentiality. Records of meetings.	Yes, to the multidisciplinary team.	For the purpose of reviewing cases or coordinating the prevention, intervention and treatment of child abuse and neglect.	Each multidisciplinary team shall have access to and may copy any record, transcript, document, photograph or other data pertaining to an alleged child victim within the possession of DCF including confidential records if the coordinator of the team identifies that the record is necessary.
*17a-151aa*	Child placed in a residential facility.	Yes, to the case worker and placing agency.	When a child is placed in a residential facility and when allegations of abuse or neglect arise.	Residential facility must prepare and provide monthly written reports on the child's care and treatment to the case worker. Facility must promptly report allegations of abuse or neglect to the placement agency.
*17a-548*	Patient’s rights regarding clothing, possessions, money and access to records. List of rights to be posted.	Yes, and no, to the patient or his attorney.	Yes, in connection with any litigation related to hospitalization, or anytime following discharge. No, if a mental health facility determines that disclosure would create a substantial risk that the patient would inflict life threatening injury to self or others, experience a severe deterioration in mental state, constitute an invasion of privacy, or would violate an assurance of confidentiality furnished to another person.	Upon written request, the patient and/or his attorney shall have the right to inspect all of such patient's hospital records, and to make copies thereof. Any patient aggrieved by the facility's refusal to disclose may petition the Superior Court for relief.
*17a-688 (a)*	Records, keeping and confidentiality of. Disclosure permitted, when. Minors consent to treatment and liability for costs.	Yes, to respondent and/or respondent’s counsel, the court.	All records maintained by the court of cases coming before it under the provisions of sections 17a-465a, 17a-673 and 17a-680 to 17a-690, inclusive.	Such records shall be sealed and available only to respondent or respondent’s counsel, unless the court determines the record should be disclosed for cause shown.
*17a-688 (c)*	Records, keeping and confidentiality of. Disclosure permitted, when. Minors, consent to treatment and liability for costs.	No.	No person, hospital or treatment facility may disclose or permit disclosure of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment of any patient that would constitute a violation of federal statutes concerning confidentiality of alcohol or drug patient records and any regulations pursuant thereto.
*17a-688 (d)*	Records, keeping and confidentiality of. Disclosure permitted, when. Minors, consent to treatment and liability for costs.	No.	If the person seeking treatment for alcohol or drug dependence is a minor, that fact can not be reported or disclosed to the parents or legal guardian of the minor without the minor's consent.
*17a-688 (e)*	Records, keeping and confidentiality of. Disclosure permitted, when. Minors, consent to treatment and liability for costs.	Yes, to authorized persons.	For the purposes of conducting scientific research, management audits, financial audits or program evaluation.	Commissioner may use or make available information from patient's records provided such information shall not be utilized in a manner that discloses patient's name or identity.
*45a-745*	Adoption record.	Yes, to the Department of Public Health and, if out of state, to the proper registration authority.	For each final decree of adoption decreed by a court of probate.	No later than the fifteenth of each month, the Probate Court Clerk shall forward the record of all final adoption decrees issued during the proceeding month.
*45a-746 (a) and 45a-746 (b)*	Information available to adoptive parents and adult adopted or adoptable person.	Yes, to adoptive parents.	When adoptive parents finalize the adoption proceedings.	Information shall be recorded by the child-placing agency or department which has access to the information, in writing on a form provided by the department.
*45a-746 (c)*	Information available to adoptive parents and adult adopted or adoptable person.	Yes, to the guardian or legally authorized representative of an adopted or adoptable person, or an adult descendant if the adopted person is deceased.	At any time.	Information provided shall be made within sixty days and shall be in writing.
*45a-746 (d)*	Information available to adoptive parents and adult adopted or adoptable person.	Yes, to the biological parent.	For the purposes of verifying, correcting or adding information to the record provided to the adoptive parent(s).	Information provided shall be made within sixty days and shall be in writing.
*45a-749*	Request for information.	Yes, to an authorized representative of the child-placing agency or department to which the request is being made.	At any time provided the request is made in person or in writing and the child-placing agency is satisfied as to the identity of the person requesting information.	Information may be released in writing or in person.
*45a-750*	Identifying information.	Yes, to an adoptable person.	At any time provided the agency is satisfied as to the identity of the person for whom the certificate is being requested.	A certificate of birth registration or a certified copy of the certificate of birth shall be issued in accordance with subsection (c) of section 7-51 or 7-52.
*45a-751*	Release of identifying information by child-placing agency or department.	Yes, to an authorized applicant.	At any time an authorized applicant wishes to obtain information that identifies or would tend to identify biological relatives who are unknown as a result of an adoption or termination of parental rights.	Applicant shall apply in person or in writing to the child-placing agency or department. Agency shall furnish the information unless the appropriate consents are not given, the agency determines that the release of information would be seriously disruptive or endanger the physical or emotional health of the applicant or the person whose identity is being requested.
*45a-751a*	Conditions regarding release of information. Counseling.	Yes, to an out-of-state placement agency.	If it appears that counseling is advisable with release of information.	Information shall be released to the out-of-state child-placing agency for release to the authorized applicant provided such information shall not be released if such agency determines that release of the requested information would be seriously disruptive to or endanger the physical or emotional health of the adoptable person or person whose identity is being requested and provided such information shall not be released unless the consents required by subsection (b) of section 45a-751b are given and out-of-state child-placing agency is satisfied as to the identity of the person.
*45a-751b (a)*	Disclosure of identifying information. Consent required.	Yes, only with written consent.	Upon request.	If parental rights were terminated on or after 10/1/1995, any information tending to identify the adoptable person, a biological parent including a person claiming to be the father, or adult biological sibling shall not be disclosed unless written consent is obtained from the person whose identity is being requested.
*45a-751b (b)*	Disclosure of identifying information. Consent required.	Yes, only with written consent from each biological parent.	Upon request.	If parental rights were terminated on or before 9/30/1995, any information identifying the biological parents shall not be disclosed unless written consent is obtained from each biological parent who was party to such proceedings and identifying information shall not be disclosed to a biological parent without the written consent of each biological parent who was party to the proceedings and the adoptable person whose identity is being requested.
*45a-754*	Records to be maintained in locked file. Disclosure for health and medical reasons.	Yes, to petitioner.	When petitioner requires such information for the health of medical treatment of any adoptable person.	Access to records containing all the papers filed in court regarding the removal of a parent as guardian, petitions for termination of parental rights, appointment of statutory parent and adoption shall be in accordance with sections 45a-743 to 45a-753 inclusive. The biological parents, parents, or blood relatives may be contacted if the information required is not within the records.
*45a-756*	Agreement to release identifying information.	Yes.	If there is a match of consents whereby the registrants agree to the releasing of identifying information to each other.	In accordance with 45a-755, the child-placing agency or department shall notify each registrant of the name, address and other identifying information as provided by the other registrant.
*46a-11g*	Referral of information to state's attorney.	Yes, to the office of the state's attorney.	If, as a result of any investigation initiated under the provisions of sections 46a-11a to 46a-11f inclusive, a determination is made that a caretaker or other person has abused a mentally retarded person.	Director shall refer such information in writing.
*46a-11h*	Confidentiality of information.	No.	Information on the identity of a person who provides information obtained by the Office of Mental Retardation in the course of an investigation.
*46a-12*	Communications protected by attorney-client privilege.	No.	All communications between an individual and any attorney employed or engaged by the advocacy office working on behalf of such individual shall be fully protected by the attorney-client privilege.
*46a-13a*	Requirements for other agencies. Release of client records by other agencies.	Yes, to the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities.	During an investigation by the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities.	Release of records by each state, local or private agency responsible for the protection of persons with disabilities shall cooperate with any investigation and shall not release records of a client without the express consent of such client or as otherwise provided by law.
*46a-13e*	Confidentiality of identity of complainant, identity of certain witnesses and other information. Limited disclosure authorized.	No.	Personally identifiable information of a person who makes a complaint to the Victim Advocate, all information generated during the course of an investigation, the identity and location of any person receiving or considered for the receipt of protective services, all information generated by the office during the course of monitoring the provision of protective services, all confidential records obtained by the Victim Advocate shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
*46a-131*	Information and assistance from state agencies.	Yes, to the Commission on Children.	The Commission on Children may request from all state agencies such information and assistance as it may require.	Dependant upon context and situation.
*46b-115s*	Information required by the Court.	Yes, to the court.	In a child custody proceeding.	Each party shall give information if reasonably ascertainable and not confidential under state law, under oath as to the child's present address or location, the places where the child has lived during the past five years, and the names and present addresses of the persons with whom the child has lived during the past five years.

Attachment M

Stakeholder Survey

One strategy of both the Legal Analysis Subcommittee and the Data and Information Management Subcommittee was to conduct qualitative research in the form of a survey of those obtaining and using information related to juveniles and families involved in the juvenile justice system. The findings of the survey are intended to help identify what information currently flows between agencies, what barriers exist to the sharing of information, what level of awareness and understanding exists among agency personnel regarding laws and policy on information sharing, and what additional information may be needed or desired by those working with children and families. In addition, the survey allowed respondents to share their thoughts on which current information sharing and collaborative practices were successful and where there could be improvement.

The bulk of the questions were crafted by the Legal Analysis Subcommittee and focused on three areas:

Structure of information sharing, including:

Identification of how information is kept.
Identification of who supervisors and workers go to for advice on legal issues.
Identification of what laws, regulations, and policies inform participants.

Views on collaboration, including:

Identification of successful collaborative practices in Connecticut.
Identification of components contributing to successful collaboration.
Identification of challenges to successful collaboration.

Legal issues impacting coordination, including:

Identification of real and perceived legal barriers to information sharing and collaboration.
Identification of how court processes impact the ability of workers to coordinate efforts on behalf of their common clients.

The Data and Information Management Subcommittee crafted additional questions designed to enhance the understanding of how information flows between agencies. The questions were:

What information are you presently receiving from other agencies?
When do you receive this information?
How do you receive this information?
What information do you need and are not receiving?
What keeps you from sharing information with other agencies?
What strengths do you see regarding agency collaboration/information sharing?
What concerns do you have regarding collaboration/information sharing?

The survey was distributed broadly among several entities: the Department of Correction, the Office of the Attorney General, Juvenile Prosecutors, Public Defenders, Yale Behavioral Health, service providers, CSSD, and DCF. Forty-eight surveys were completed, with the bulk of responses coming from DCF and CSSD’s probation department. Supervisors as well as juvenile probation officers and social workers were among the respondents.

The Legal Analysis Subcommittee analyzed the findings to help guide their work. The subcommittee found that confidentiality and information sharing laws are most often reported to be “strict,” “confusing” and “inconsistent.” Most notably, many respondents were not sure what to do with information in a file that was generated by another agency. Some respondents stated that their agency’s policies on information sharing were clear, but that interpretations and application of such policies might be inconsistent. Similarly, respondents were aware of and could name the specific policies and statutes that guide information sharing and coordination, but shared that the inconsistency of interpretation between agencies made coordination and communication difficult. In addition, knowledge of policies and statutes does not guarantee an understanding of the legal guidelines. In fact, many of the survey respondents reported they do not share more information because they do not know if they are legally allowed to do so, indicating that employee training regarding the appropriate sharing of information would be helpful.

The Data and Information Management Subcommittee derived trends in the area of information sharing from an assessment of the survey. The results indicated that most of the information shared is background information, it is shared at the time of intake, and it is usually shared verbally or by telephone. Respondents from DCF and from CSSD Probation stated that informal processes are sometimes utilized for the sharing of information, and pointed out that this can cause difficulty because it is not always clear who the worker in the other system is, and it can be hard to get information as quickly as needed.

Respondents indicated that they sometimes have difficulty obtaining medical or mental health information from hospitals or treatment providers. This is information both DCF and CSSD workers feel is helpful in developing their case and treatment plans. Additionally, Probation Officers stated that they do not receive medical/mental health information from detention centers, and that information from schools would be helpful for inclusion in the pre-dispositional study prepared for the court. Several respondents indicated great concern with the timeliness of information sharing, suggesting that more efficient procedures should be developed.

Respondents stated that collaboration and information sharing between agencies has recently improved, giving credit to interagency strategies such as the implementation of DCF liaisons available at detention and court and the establishment of multi-agency case review teams by CSSD Probation. Most reported concerns about collaboration due to interagency culture and the misunderstanding or miscommunication of expectations and responsibilities. These issues can be addressed through improved training and facilitation of interagency collaboration.

Attachment N

Data and Information Management Subcommittee

Recommended Aggregate Data Reports

Arrests and Referrals to Juvenile Court

Total referrals by court location
Referrals by zip code
Referrals by type:

A. Delinquency (SJO, Non-SJO)

B. FWSN (Truancy, Out of Control, YIC, etc.)

C. Judicial

D. Non-judicial

Referrals by race/ethnicity, gender, age
First-time referrals
Arrests by location
Arrests by offense (based on the Unified Crime Report)
Percent of cases transferred to adult court
Percent of cases transferred back to juvenile court

Detention

Total juveniles detained by court location/detention center
Total juveniles detained by type of admission/charge:

A. SJO

B. Non-SJO

C. Violation of a Valid Court Order

D. FWSN

Admissions by race/ethnicity, gender, age
Average length of stay (total and by detention center)
Average daily population by detention center
Percent of juveniles in detention already known to DCF at time of entry (due to maltreatment)
Percent of juveniles in detention with a diagnosed mental health or substance abuse issue
Percent of juveniles in detention with a diagnosed medical issue
Percent of juveniles with special education needs
Number of juveniles who receive post-release follow-up care

Case Processing (by race/ethnicity, gender, age)

By residence and zip code
Percent FWSN
Percent Delinquency
Percent non-judicial handling

A. Non-judicial by outcome - assessed & discharged, non-judicial supervision, dismissed

Percent judicial handling

A. Percent no adjudication

i. Nolle

ii. Dismissed

iii. Miscellaneous

iv. Not Delinquent

B. Percent Adjudicated Delinquent

i. Placed on probation

ii. Discharged

iii. Committed to DCF

C. Percent Transferred to Adult Court

i. Transfers

ii. Transfers by type

Probation

By race/ethnicity, gender, age
Services provided
Average length of probation
Average daily caseload of probation
Residence
Percent of juveniles with previous maltreatment history
Percent of juveniles with current DCF involvement resulting from maltreatment
Percent of juveniles with diagnosed mental health or substance abuse issues
Recidivism rates

Parole

By race/ethnicity, gender, age
Services provided
Average length of parole
Average daily caseload of parole
Residence
Percent of juveniles with previous maltreatment history
Percent of juveniles with current DCF involvement resulting from maltreatment
Percent of juveniles with diagnosed mental health or substance abuse issues
Recidivism rates

Commitments to DCF (by race/ethnicity, gender, age)

1. Commitments to DCF

2. Commitments to CJTS

3. FWSN

4. Direct placement

5. Average length of stay out of home community

6. Average daily population at CJTS, private residential, community-based programs

7. Recidivism rates

8. Committing offense and type

9. Need identified

10. Services provided