Try our new design and let us know what you think!
North Carolina Digital Collections beta
North Carolina Digital Collections beta
State Publications Collection
Performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the North...
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
of the
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS AND
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS
Within the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
RALPH CAMPBELL, JR.
STATE AUDITOR
MAY 2003 Ralph Campbell, Jr.
State Auditor
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Office of the State Auditor
2 S. Salisbury Street
20601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699- 0601
Telephone: ( 919) 807- 7500
Fax: ( 919) 807- 7647
Internet http:// www. osa. state. nc. us
May 7, 2003
The Honorable Michael F. Easley, Governor
Secretary George L. Sweat
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Members of the North Carolina General Assembly
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are pleased to submit this performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
This report consists of an executive summary and findings and recommendations that contain program overview information. The objectives of the audit were to: 1) examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of possible abuse and neglect at the Youth Development Centers, 2) determine the effectiveness of the training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs, 3) determine the current staffing levels at the Central Office and the Centers and the type and quality of training provided for staff, and 4) examine the Department’s use of technology for management of juvenile information and reporting purposes and other management control procedures. Secretary Sweat has reviewed a draft copy of this report. His written comments are included as Appendix G, page 129.
We wish to express our appreciation to Secretary Sweat, his staff, and the Directors and staff at each Youth Development and Detention Center for the courtesy, cooperation, and assistance provided us during this effort.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Campbell, Jr.
State Auditor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ .. 1
JUVENILE JUSTICE DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 5
AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 7
PROGRAM OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... .... 9
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 15
Objective 1: Safety and Security..................................................................................................... 16
Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 16
Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 20
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 20
Security Issues......................................................................................................................... 21
Safety Issues......................................................................................................................... ... 28
Objective 2: Training, Education, Treatment.................................................................................. 34
Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 34
Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 35
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 35
Juvenile Training and Education Issues.................................................................................. 36
Juvenile Treatment and Rehabilitation Issues.......................................................................... 44
Pictures of Youth Development And Detention Centers.......................................................................... 53- 58
Objective 3: Staffing and Training.................................................................................................. 59
Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 59
Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 59
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 60
Staffing Issues......................................................................................................................... 61
Training Issues......................................................................................................................... 72
Objective 4: Management Systems.................................................................................................. 76
Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 76
Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 79
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 79
Internal Controls Issues........................................................................................................... 80
Technology Issues.................................................................................................................... 82
TABLES:
1 DJJDP’s Authorized Budget Data: FY1998- 99 through FY2002- 03.............................................. 13
2 Reasons for Detention..................................................................................................................... 16
3 Use of Security Technology at Youth Development Centers.......................................................... 22
4 Number of Escapes and Attempted Escapes: Youth Development Centers: FY1998- 99 – 2002- 03..................................................................................................................... 23
5 Summary of Facility Condition Assessment Program Reports on Youth Development Centers: 2000........................................................................................... 27
6 Summary of Youth Development and Detention Centers’ Workers’ Compensation Claims: 2000 - 2002....................................................................................................................... 28
7 Detention Centers’ Average Juvenile Population: FY1998- 99 – 2002- 03..................................... 31
8 Results of Abuse and Neglect Reporting Documentation Review.................................................. 32
9 Percent of GED Graduates based on Average Daily Population: FY1998- 99 – 2002- 03..................................................................................................................... 37
10 Education Files Test Results........................................................................................................... 38
11 Vocational Education Courses as of December 2002..................................................................... 40
12 Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking: FY2001- 02.................................................................................. 41
13 Comparison of Central Office Education Staff............................................................................... 43
14 Vacant Positions by Locations: July 1998 – December 2002........................................................ 61
15 Vacant Positions by Category: December 2002............................................................................. 61
16 Changes in Positions by Location: July 1998 – December 2002................................................... 62 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLES ( CONTINUED):
17 DJJDP Institutional Services Employee Turnover Rates: July 1999 – December 2002................ 64
18 Turnover Rate for Employees Working Directly With Juveniles: December 2002....................... 64
19 DJJDP Detention Centers Staffing: December 2002....................................................................... 65
20 Education Staff and Average Daily Population: December 2002.................................................. 66
21 DPI Pupil – Teacher Ratio Standards.............................................................................................. 67
22 Comparison of Other States’ Juvenile to Direct Care Ratios.......................................................... 69
23 Span of Control for Direct Care Staff............................................................................................. 70
24 Court Counselor Caseloads: December 2002................................................................................. 71
25 Other States’ Supervision Caseloads............................................................................................... 71
26 Summary of DJJDP Staff Training Policies.................................................................................... 72
27 Results of Youth Development and Detention Centers’ Employees’ Training Review.................. 74
28 J- NET Funding Sources and Amounts............................................................................................ 77
29 DJJDP NC- JOIN Project Needs Included in Expansion Budget..................................................... 78
30 NC- JOIN Budget and Funding Sources.......................................................................................... 84
EXHIBITS:
1 DJJDP’s Organizational Chart as of November 2002..................................................................... 12
2 Breakdown of DJJDP Expenditures................................................................................................ 13
3 Simplified Overview of the Juvenile Justice Process...................................................................... 18
4 Youth Development System Locations and Bed Capacity.............................................................. 19
5 Admissions by Offense................................................................................................................... 24
6 Example of Youth Development Center Cottage Layout................................................................ 29
7 Therapeutic and Education Needs of Juveniles in Youth Development Centers: FY00- 01............ 34
8 Youth Development Centers’ Education Budgets........................................................................... 41
9 Total Annual Cost Per Bed: FY1998- 99 – 2001- 02....................................................................... 50
10 Youth Development and Detention Centers Expenditures: FY1998- 99 – 2001- 02....................... 59
11 DJJDP Field Staff Levels................................................................................................................ 63
12 DJJDP Juvenile to Staff Ratios: December 2002........................................................................... 68
APPENDICES:
A Number of Admissions by County.................................................................................................. 89
B Youth Development Center Site Visit Findings / Observations by Center..................................... 91
C. A. Dillon......................................................................................................................... ..... 91
Dobbs.......................................................................................................................... ............ 95
Samarkand...................................................................................................................... ...... 100
Stonewall Jackson.................................................................................................................. 105
Swannanoa...................................................................................................................... ...... 110
C Summary of MGT Staffing Study................................................................................................. 115
D Summary Results of Court Counselor Survey............................................................................... 117
E Original Budget for J- NET Grant.................................................................................................. 123
F DJJDP Accomplishments.............................................................................................................. 125
G Response from Secretary, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention............. 129
DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT REPORT.................................................................................................. 153
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Program Description
Established in 2000, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) is responsible for fighting juvenile crime and helping young people avoid delinquency. A major part of the Department’s mission is to coordinate juvenile justice strategies in North Carolina by overseeing the State’s juvenile court offices, development and detention centers. North Carolina’s juvenile courts have original jurisdiction over anyone charged with a crime who was under the age of 18 ( up to age 21 in certain situations) at the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court. Juveniles awaiting a court appearance or ordered held for brief periods generally are sent to one of 14 Detention Centers. Ten of those Centers are operated by the State and four by counties, with a total of 322 beds. Once a juvenile has been judged delinquent by a court, he is assigned to one of the five Youth Development Centers operated by the Department’s Youth Development Division. There are 705 Youth Development Center beds in those five centers.
Audit Scope and Methodology
This performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was undertaken at the request of the Buncombe County legislative delegation. The scope of the audit encompassed the entire Department with an emphasis on the five Youth Development Centers and the 14 Detention Centers located across the State.
Conclusions in Brief
Objective 1:
Safety and
Security
The Youth Development Centers are housed in facilities that are, for the most part, over 60 years old. Half of the Detention Centers are 30- 40 years old. Most Centers are in poor physical condition, and the age and construction of the Centers increases the security risks. Two of the five Youth Development Centers do not have security fences, and the use of electronic security measures is virtually non- existent. The Centers’ campus- style layouts further increase security risks by requiring offenders to be moved from secured housing units to less secure buildings for meals, classes, or other reasons. Abandoned buildings obscure lines of sight allowing opportunities for escapes. Poor building layouts and high juvenile- to- staff ratios lessens the safety for both offenders and staff. Some Detention Centers are overcrowded, which can increase the stress on both offenders and staff. Due to inconsistent policies and procedures, staff is confused over what, when, and to whom to report suspected incidents of abuse and neglect. Estimated repair and renovation costs for the existing Centers is about $ 44 million. The Department estimates construction of three new Youth Development Center facilities to replace the existing ones to be $ 90 million.
Objective 2:
Juvenile
Training,
Education,
Treatment,
Rehabilitation
The Youth Development Center schools, classified as alternative schools by the State, use the North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study even though the requirements are not applicable to a substantial number of juvenile offenders. Approximately 61% of offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs when committed to the Centers, with about 60% of them not functionally literate according to Center teachers. On average, only 13.2% of the offenders complete a GED while at the Centers. Further, vocational programs varied at the Centers, community leaders had little input into the vocational education courses offered, and there was no systematic follow- up to assess vocational training or to assist juveniles in obtaining jobs in areas where they had received training. Youth Development Center instructional budgets were not sufficient, did not include any funding from local education authorities, and did not have any input from education staff at the Centers.
There is a lack of clarity about the importance and role of clinical treatment and rehabilitation in the system. Programs are disorganized, lack resources, and may not be allocated enough time. However, the Assessment and Treatment Center approach offers significant improvement. While several model programs are on- going within the system, major shortcomings noted included need for more group treatment, family treatment, and increased one- to- one therapy. Provision of these services would better justify the State’s $ 55,029 annual investment in each juvenile offender.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objective 3:
Staffing and
Training
Sixty- two percent of the Department’s staff ( 1,233 of 1,994) work in the Youth Development Division. Sixty- one percent of the vacant positions were at the Youth Development and Detention Centers, with vacancies remaining open for over a year on average. While there has been extensive job shifting since the creation of the Department, only 12 field positions have been transferred to the Central Office. However, the Centers have suffered a net loss of 211 positions, mostly due to cuts caused by the State’s budget situation. Turnover rates for the Centers have been high, averaging almost 20% annually, with turnover rates for some positions as high as 55% ( cottage parent). That has resulted in uneven staff distribution for the Centers. DJJDP has not established target ratios for the different types of staff at the Centers to help balance staffing.
Training polices were inconsistent and appeared to be inadequate for certain types of employees. The Centers have not consistently provided the required orientation and in- service training for employees, and some of the training provided was not timely. Some Center personnel working directly with juvenile offenders, for instance, did not receive basic training for seven to eight months after they were hired. Most delays in training were related to staff and budget shortages.
Objective 4:
Management
Systems
DJJDP management has faced a number of obstacles in forming a single, cohesive entity from two separate divisions in different agencies. Management has been updating the ten- year- old Administrative Code brought over from DHHS and AOC with the respective divisions. This process is almost complete, but the lack of formal policies and procedures hampers effective operations in the Centers since there is a mixture of old and new policies and procedures. Changing from a correctional to a therapeutic model has led to some communication problems, with educational or treatment experts in the Central Office communicating directly with specialists at the Centers. This situation has at times left the Center Directors, who have overall responsibility for Center operations, out of the information loop and caused communication problems between the field staff and the Central Office.
A second major obstacle faced by agency management has been the absence of readily available data on the juvenile population. Prior to 1999 and the formation of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there was no centralized, automated information system for juvenile offender data. The Department has been working on a statewide database to manage and track juvenile offenders. As of January 2003, it has spent $ 9.8 million in federal and State funds to develop and implement the project. A major concern for the NC- JOIN ( North Carolina Juvenile Online Information Network) project is a stable source of funding to complete this project. The agency estimates that $ 3.9 million is needed to complete the design and implementation statewide by the target date of June 2007. An additional $ 9.3 million is needed to maintain the technical infrastructure
Specific Findings
Page
Objective 1: Safety and Security
Safety Issues:
All Youth Development Centers do not have site security and access control measures................... 21
Security risks are increased by the Centers’ campus style layouts..................................................... 23
The age and construction of Center buildings increases the security risks.............................................. 24
The Youth Development and Detention Centers buildings are in poor condition................................ 26
Security Issues:
Building layout and staffing ratios contribute to unsafe conditions............................................................. 28
Some state operated juvenile Detention Centers are overcrowded........................................................... 30
DJJDP’s reporting system for possible abuse incidents is not consistent or effectively documented.. 31
Objective 2: Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation
Juvenile Training and Education Issues:
The North Carolina standard Course of Study is not compatible with the needs of the juvenile offenders...................................................................................................................... ........................ 36
Youth Development Centers’ education files for individual juveniles were incomplete..................................................................................................................... ............. 38
Dealing with juvenile offenders requires teachers with a unique set of skills and experience............. 38
There does not appear to be any rationale for the array of specialized education programs at the Centers........................................................................................................................ ........................ 39
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page
Youth Development Center instructional budgets are not sufficient.................................................... 41
DJJDP’s educational staff face unique challenges in providing quality education............................... 42
There is limited community involvement in Center education programs.............................................. 43
Juvenile Treatment and Rehabilitation Issues:
There is a general lack of clarity about the importance and role of clinical treatment and rehabilitation in the system......................................................................................................................... ............... 44
Treatment programs at most of the centers are disorganized and lack resources.............................. 45
Staff is confused on how to transition from a correctional to an individual needs clinical philosophy. 46
There are several current attempts to build model programs within the system.................................. 47
Centers are inconsistent in their ability to maintain active group treatment programs. ...................... 48
Staff to juvenile ratio in most Centers does not appear to allow for the provision of intensive one to one contact with licensed professionals............................................................................................... 49
Centers don’t have the resources to offer needed family treatment options. ...................................... 50
The Assessment and Treatment Planning Center approach represents a significant potential improvement to the clinical system....................................................................................................... 51
Objective 3: Staffing and Training
Staffing Issues:
Vacant positions negatively affect Youth Development and Detention Centers operations. .............. 61
DJJDP field staff has been reduced since the creation of the department.......................................... 62
Turnover rates for specific positions at DJJDP are high...................................................................... 63
Both Youth Development and Detention Centers suffer from inequitable staff distribution................. 65
Youth Development and Detention Centers are under- staffed in direct care positions....................... 66
DJJDP has not established formal juvenile to direct care staff and teacher ratios.............................. 67
Span of control may be too large for some direct care supervisors at Youth Development and Detention Centers........................................................................................................................ ........ 70
There are no caseload standards for Court Counselors...................................................................... 71
Training Issues:
Training policies are not consistent and may be inadequate for certain types of employees. 72
Youth Development and Detention Centers have not consistently provided the required orientation and in- service training....................................................................................................................... .. 73
Objective 4: Management Controls
Internal Control Issues:
The lack of formal policies and procedures hampers effective operations in the Centers................... 80
Communication and information flow between the Central Office and the Youth Development Centers is not consistently effective................................................................................................................... 81
Technology Issues:
Lessons learned from J- NET can benefit NC- JOIN development........................................................ 82
DJJDP may not have the resources to adequately complete development of NC- JOIN..................... 84
3
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
" Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention”
Issued May 2003
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS:
4
The Centers’ age and campus layout create security risks.
Youth Development Centers should be replaced.
Modify curriculum to address offender needs; restructure treatment options.
1. Safety and Security
Offender education and treatment practices need to be updated and enhanced.
2. Juvenile Education/ Treatment
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
1
2
Revise safety/ security policies
Address immediate need safety/ security shortcomings
Increase use of technology/ electronic security measures
Re- examine use of buildings andstudent movement
Modify most problematic physicallayouts
Examine need for more DetentionCenters
Train employees on suspectedabuse reporting requirements
Consider paying instructors ondifferent pay scale
Set up process for approval ofeducation / training courses
Evaluate educational budgetprocedures
Articulate clinical philosophy; tie inall Center activities
Establish clear procedures fortransition from correctional model
Consider alternative treatmentoptions
Fully develop Assessment Centers
Vacancies and untimely training negatively affect Center operations.
3. Staffing and Training
3
Devise strategy to fill positions sooner; provide timely training.
Determine adequate staffing levelsat Centers
Establish juvenile to staff ratios forall positions
Consider position study forupgrades, especially high turn- overpositions
Provide basic and job- specifictraining to all staff
Provide required training timely
4
Identify stable funding source for NC- JOIN; finalize policies.
Mixed policies and inaccessible offender data hamper operations.
4. Management Controls
Focus on replacing outdated facilities.
AGENCY RESPONSE:
Give operational policies/ procedureshigh priority; train staff
Define matrix organizationalstructure; lines of authority, responsibility
Continue emphasis on development/ implementation of NC- JOIN
Request priority for funding fromGeneral Assembly
Identify alternative funding sources
Finalizing policies; seeking NC- JOIN funding.
Looking at curriculum as allowed; addressing treatment options.
Working with OSP; revising training strategies. JUVENILE JUSTICE DEFINITIONS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
Definitions of words and phrases that are used throughout this report, as well as terms and program titles that are unique to NC DJJDP are listed below to aid the reader and to serve as a reference source.
Adjudication: The court process whereby a juvenile is found to be delinquent, undisciplined, dependent, neglected, or abused.
Alternatives to Detention Services ( ATD): Services provided by a court counselor by court order as an alternative to secure detention. The services reduce the number of days a juvenile remains in secure custody by providing close, daily supervision in the home in lieu of secure detention.
Assessment and Treatment Planning Center: A secure facility where, during the first 30 days of commitment to the Department, juveniles are screened, assessed, and evaluated regarding their clinical, rehabilitative, and educational needs, and plans are developed to address these needs.
Camp Woodson: A therapeutic adventure- based camping program, implemented through Youth Development, which operates in wilderness areas throughout the state. In the program, juveniles live outdoors, participate in individual and group counseling, learn personal responsibility, develop a respect for an understanding of the natural world, develop plans for successful re- entry into their communities, and take part in activities that build trust, self- esteem, and cooperation.
Center for the Prevention of School Violence ( CPSV): A resource center and “ think tank” promoting safe schools and positive youth development. DJJDP’s primary resource for dealing with the problem of school violence with the focus on ensuring that schools are safe and secure so that every juvenile is able to attend a school that is safe and secure, free of fear and conducive to learning.
Chief court counselor: The person responsible for administration and supervision of juvenile intake, probation, and post- release supervision in each judicial district, operating under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Community- based program: A program providing nonresidential or residential treatment to a juvenile under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in the community where the juvenile��s family lives. A community- based program may include specialized foster care, family counseling, shelter care, and other appropriate treatment.
Complaint: A written allegation that a juvenile is delinquent or undisciplined with a signature verifying that the allegation is true. A complaint initiates the intake process.
Court counselor: An employee of DJJDP who provides intake, probation, protective supervision, post- release supervision and/ or other services under the direction of the chief court counselor.
Delinquent juvenile: Any juvenile who, while less than 16 years of age but at least 6 years of age, commits a crime or infraction under state law or under an ordinance of local government, including violation of motor vehicle laws.
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP): The state’s juvenile justice agency responsible for a broad range of programs designed to reduce crime and delinquency and protect the general public. It has responsibility for state- operated youth development centers and juvenile Detention Centers as well as those programs funded by the Department but operated by other service providers. Facilities and program areas include 5 youth development centers, 14 juvenile Detention Centers, 2 state- operated wilderness camps, 7 Eckerd Wilderness Camps, 59 Governor’s One- on- One Volunteer programs, 6 Multipurpose Group Homes, 100 SOS Programs, 556 JCPC funded programs, and juvenile court counselor services in 100 counties.
Detention: The secure confinement of a juvenile pursuant to a court order.
Detention Centers: A facility approved to provide secure confinement and care for juveniles. Detention facilities include state and locally administered detention homes and centers.
Disposition: The treatment plan ordered by the court for the juvenile after the case has been adjudicated.
District: Boundaries for DJJDP court services operations administered by chief court counselors. The 39 DJJDP districts generally coincide with District Court Districts as set out in NC General Statute 7A- 133.
Diversion plan/ contract: An agreement at intake between the juvenile, the juvenile’s parent, guardian or custodian, and the court counselor where the complaint against the juvenile is diverted from court and the juvenile agrees to certain expectations and/ or is referred to a resource for services.
Eckerd Camps: A year- round wilderness camping residential treatment program, implemented through Youth Development, for youth whose behavior has led to their removal from family, school, and community. Counselor- teachers live with the youth and through programming and experiential learning promote self- esteem, personal responsibility, communication skills, and self- discipline.
Faith- based initiative: A new DJJDP initiative that is designed to offer delinquent juveniles the opportunity to explore their own spiritual growth and to invite the faith community to engage with these juveniles and their families to create conditions that support their positive growth and development.
Governor’s One- on- One program: A mentor program, implemented through Intervention and Prevention, that utilizes adult volunteers to build relationships with and help redirect troubled youth. Mentors assist youth by tutoring, assisting with skill building, participating in recreational activities and workshops, and providing transportation to medical and other appointments.
H. E. A. R. T.: Holistic Enrichment At- Risk Teens. A holistic gender- specific substance abuse residential treatment and education program for adjudicated females.
House arrest: A requirement that the juvenile remain at the juvenile’s residence unless the court or the juvenile court counselor authorizes the juvenile to leave for specific purposes.
5
JUVENILE JUSTICE DEFINITIONS
Intake counselor: A person who screens and evaluates a complaint alleging that a juvenile is delinquent or undisciplined to determine whether the complaint should be filed as a petition.
Intensive supervision: A level of supervision services provided by a court counselor for a juvenile under the jurisdiction of the court including intensive probation. Intensive supervision requires an increase in the number of contacts with the juvenile and parent( s).
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council ( JCPC): The local body that works in partnership with the state to develop community- based alternatives to youth development centers to provide community- based delinquency and substance abuse alternatives that will protect the community and juveniles.
Needs assessment: A systematic assessment of service and treatment needs of a juvenile and family. Factors related to each juvenile and his/ her family are scored and totaled to determine the appropriate needs level. At least three priority needs are identified and should be addressed in a court disposition and/ or a service plan to determine appropriate service interventions. Risk and needs assessments are used together to help determine the amount of supervision as well as services, interventions, and treatments a juvenile may need.
Petition: The document filed with the court to initiate a juvenile court proceeding.
Post- release supervision: The supervision of a juvenile who has been returned to the community after having been committed to the DJJDP for placement in a youth development center.
Probation: The status of a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent, is subject to specified conditions under the supervision of a court counselor, and may be returned to the court for violation of those conditions during the period of probation.
Protective supervision: The status of a juvenile who has been adjudicated undisciplined and is under the supervision of a court counselor.
Risk assessment: A statistical procedure for estimating the probability that a juvenile will commit future delinquent offenses. Factors related to the juvenile’s age, number of referrals to intake, most serious prior adjudication( s), prior assaults, runaway history, substance use, school behavior, peer relationships, and parental supervision are scored and totaled to determine a risk level. Risk level, current offense, and delinquency history are considered by the court counselor in making a recommendation and by judges in determining a disposition level.
School violence: Any behavior that violates a school’s educational mission or climate of respect or jeopardizes the intent of the school to be free of aggression against persons or property, drugs, weapons, disruptions, and disorder ( as defined by the Center for the Prevention of School Violence and recognized by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service).
Secure custody: Physical placement of a juvenile in an approved detention facility, pursuant to a court order.
Sexual offender treatment: For JCPCs: Any community- based program that is sex offender specific and excludes other types of mental health services, has an assessment component, is practiced primarily in groups, is confrontive, and generally legally mandated, has a family group component and has designated follow- up procedures. For DJJDP Facilities: A program that specifically addresses an individual’s sexual offending behaviors, has an assessment component, is practiced primarily in groups, is confrontive, and results in the development of a Relapse Prevention Plan.
Status offender: An undisciplined juvenile.
Support Our Juveniles ( SOS) program: A program, implemented through Intervention and Prevention, in which community volunteers are paired with middle school juveniles to help juveniles improve academic performance and self- esteem. Volunteers collaborate with teachers, guidance counselors, and parents to promote a meaningful learning environment.
Temporary custody: The physical taking and holding of a juvenile under personal supervision, before a petition is filed and without a court order.
Undisciplined juvenile: a) A juvenile who, while less than 16 years of age but at least 6 years of age, is unlawfully absent from school; or is regularly disobedient to and beyond the disciplinary control of the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian; or is regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be; or has run away from home for a period of more than 24 hours; or b) A juvenile who is 16 or 17 years of age and who is regularly disobedient to and beyond the disciplinary control of the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian; or is regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be; or has run away from home for a period of more than 24 hours.
Wilderness program: A rehabilitative residential treatment program in a rural or outdoor setting.
Youth Development Center ( YDC): A secure residential facility authorized to provide long- term treatment, education, and rehabilitative services for delinquent juveniles committed by the court to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Source: DJJDP’s web page
6
AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
North Carolina General Statute 147- 64.6 empowers the State Auditor with authority to conduct performance audits of any State agency or program. Performance audits are reviews of activities and operations to determine whether resources are being used economically, efficiently, and effectively.
This performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and the Juvenile Detention Centers within the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) was undertaken at the request of the Buncombe County legislative delegation. The request was an outgrowth of allegations of mismanagement and abuse, coupled with media reports of problems at the Swannanoa Youth Development Center. Preliminary discussions identified what appeared to be systemic concerns. Therefore, the scope of the audit encompassed the entire Department with an emphasis on the five Youth Development Centers and the ten State- operated and four local county- operated Detention Centers located across the State. Since many of the issues identified required the assistance of subject matter specialists, the State Auditor supplemented his staff with experts in the areas of education, training, and treatment of juvenile offenders, as well as facility security experts.
The audit sought to answer a number of questions relative to the operation of Youth Development and Juvenile Detention Centers within the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Questions included:
How secure are the current Youth Development Centers, and how safe are the juveniles at these Centers?
What improvements / renovations would be needed at the Centers to improve the safety and security of both the juveniles and the staff?
How effective are the education, training, treatment, and rehabilitation programs at the Centers?
What is the rate of employee turnover at the Centers, and are they adequately staffed?
Have positions been transferred from the Centers and other field operations to the DJJDP Central Office?
Does DJJDP have the necessary resources to effectively and efficiently administer the programs under its purview?
Is DJJDP effectively utilizing technology options to manage the juvenile population, provide needed data, and fulfill its mission?
These questions lead to the development of the following objectives:
Objective 1 - Safety and Security: To examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of abuse at the Youth Development Centers.
Objective 2 – Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation: To determine the effectiveness of training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs.
Objective 3 – Staffing and Training: To determine the current staffing levels at the Central Office, Youth Development Centers, and Detention Centers; and type and quality of training provided for staff.
7
AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Objective 4 – Management Systems: To examine DJJDP’s use of technology for management of juvenile information and reporting purposes and other management control procedures.
During the period October 2002 through February 2003, we conducted the fieldwork for this performance audit. To achieve the audit objectives, we employed various auditing techniques that adhere to the generally accepted auditing standards as promulgated in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. These techniques included:
• Review of existing General Statutes and the North Carolina Administrative Code as they related to DJJDP.
• Analysis of policies and procedures at the DJJDP Central Office and at each Youth Development Center and Detention Centers visited.
• Interviews with DJJDP Central Office staff, as well as interviews with staff at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
• Review of internal and external reports on DJJDP and the handling of juvenile offenders.
• Examination of organizational charts and job descriptions for DJJDP.
• Compilation and analysis of funding and expenditure data for DJJDP as a whole and the Youth Development and Detention Centers specifically.
• Survey of district Court Counselors.
• Analysis of incident reports at the Youth Development Centers, as well as workers’ compensation claims for staff at the Centers.
• Site visits and staff interviews at all five Youth Development Centers and six Detentions Centers to determine areas of concern, staffing levels, and level and kind of DJJDP oversight.
• Review of clinical and educational records and program documentation at each Youth Development Center.
• Examination of safety and security issues at each Youth Development Center and review of capital improvement plans and reports.
• Interviews with numerous persons outside DJJDP who are or have been involved with the program or with the creation of DJJDP.
• Interviews with former offenders, parents and advocacy groups.
• Compilation of data on other states’ juvenile offender programs.
This report contains the results of the audit as well as specific recommendations aimed at improving the operations of DJJDP in terms of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Because of the test nature and other inherent limitations of an audit, together with the limitations of any system of internal and management controls, this audit would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system or lack of compliance. Also, projection of any of the results contained in this report to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate due to changes in conditions and/ or personnel, or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate.
8
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
PROGRAM OVERVIEW: The North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) was created by the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act ( Article 3C in General Statutes Chapter 147). Legislation merged the Division of Youth Services within the Department of Health and Human Services and the Juvenile Services Division within the Administrative Office of the Courts. These two divisions created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which was initially located in the Governor’s Office. In 2000, the Office of Juvenile Justice was elevated to cabinet- level status.
The mission of DJJDP is to promote public safety and juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment through the operation of a seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system. The goals of DJJDP are:
To promote public safety as the cornerstone of North Carolina’s juvenile justice system;
To promote juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment at the State and community levels so that juvenile crime and delinquency are reduced;
To establish and maintain a seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system.
Currently, DJJDP is organized into four major divisions to accomplish its goals: Administration and Operations, Intervention / Prevention, Youth Development, and Center for the Prevention of School Violence. ( See Exhibit 1, page 12.) The major functions of each division are discussed below.
Administration and Operations: The Administration Division oversees the legislative efforts of DJJDP, develops DJJDP's legislative agenda, coordinates legislative reports, responds to legislative inquiries, and represents DJJDP at the General Assembly and committee hearings. Additionally, this Division oversees the communications, policy, internal audit, safety, and chaplaincy initiatives of DJJDP.
The Operations Division is the support arm of DJJDP, providing a qualified workforce, accounting for all fiscal activities, maximizing internal resources, and directing funds in conjunction with departmental mission and goals.
Intervention / Prevention: The Intervention/ Prevention Division provides intake, probation, and post release supervision services for delinquent and undisciplined juveniles statewide. In addition, this Division provides technical and financial support for local juvenile justice programs through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils ( JCPCs) in each county. The Division also assists counties that are unable to address all of their specific identified needs within their allotment of JCPC funding by developing or coordinating efforts to target areas of unmet needs.
DJJDP partners with Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils in each county to galvanize community leaders, locally and statewide, to reduce and prevent juvenile crime. JCPC board members, appointed by the county Board of Commissioners, meet monthly in each county. DJJDP allocates approximately $ 23 million to these councils annually to 9
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
10
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
subsidize local programs and services. The JCPCs work to fund these types of services and programs in their local communities:
• Counseling
• Home- based family services
• Treatment centers
• Psychological services
• Residential group homes
• Restitution
• Specialized foster care
• Shelter care
• Guided growth programs
Court Counseling Services are provided through district court counselor offices, with staff serving juveniles in each county. The Chief Court Counselor supervises court counselor staff and is responsible to a DJJDP Area Administrator. Court Counselors are responsible for:
• Intake-- receiving and evaluating delinquent and undisciplined complaints that law enforcement or citizens refer for possible court action.
• Evaluation-- Counselors interview the complainant and/ or the victim, the juvenile and the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian, and persons who are known to have relevant information about the juvenile or the juvenile's family to make a decision whether to approve the complaint for court action or to handle the complaint without court action.
• Reporting-- to the court regarding juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent to assist the court in making the most appropriate disposition for a juvenile.
• Monitoring-- court orders that a judge may make regarding undisciplined or delinquent youth.
• Working-- with undisciplined juveniles who are placed under protective supervision and with delinquent juveniles who are placed on probation.
Juveniles who are determined by the court to have committed serious delinquent offenses and who have a high delinquency history are committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for placement in a youth development center.
More specialized services such as Alternative to Detention Counselors and the Transportation programs augment the primary work of court counselors. Alternative to Detention Counselors provide daily contact, supervision, and monitoring of an extremely small caseload of individuals who would otherwise need to be in secure detention. Transportation Officers provide for the secure transfer of individuals between court, detention, and Youth Development Centers.
The Support Our Juveniles ( SOS) Program is a community based after- school initiative that provides support and guidance to young people by involving them in constructive activities to keep them focused and out of trouble. The SOS Program provides after- school activities for school- aged children through grants to neighborhood and community- based organizations. These programs provide the delivery of services by public and non- public agencies to these children.
10
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
There are also a number of other specialty programs under the Intervention / Prevention area. The North Carolina Eckerd Wilderness Camps serve boys and girls, ages 10 through 17, with behavioral problems. The camps are year- round, staff- secure, residential therapeutic programs, providing an alternative to more restrictive programs. The Multipurpose Juvenile Home Program is designed to provide secure non- institutional alternatives to secure Detention and Youth Development Centers through contracts with private providers. The Governor's One on One Program provides technical assistance, training, monitoring, and funding for local program coordinators who recruit, screen, and match adult volunteers who agree to spend at least four hours a week for one year in a one to one relationship with a troubled young person.
Youth Development: The Youth Development Division of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is responsible for the operation of the five Youth Development Centers, Camp Woodson, ten Juvenile Detention Centers ( and contracts with four other county- operated Detention Centers), and the Juvenile Transportation Units. This Division has over 1,200 employees with an annual budget of over $ 55,000,000 and is responsible for the day- to- day operation and management of the 705 juvenile Youth Development Center beds and the 322 Detention Center beds ( 214 state- operated and 108 local county- operated).
Center for the Prevention of School Violence: The Center for the Prevention of School Violence serves as a resource center and “ think tank” offering knowledge and expertise in the areas of prevention and positive youth development with the intent of assisting efforts that are directed at guiding all of North Carolina’s youth toward becoming productive members of their schools and communities.
11
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
12
EXHIBIT 1
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP)
Organizational Chart as of November 2002
Source: DJJDP
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
13
DJJDP’s total authorized budget for fiscal year 2002- 03 shows revenue and appropriations of $ 141,156,237. Total revenues and expenditures for DJJDP for fiscal years 1998- 99 through 2001- 02 are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Authorized Budget Data
FY98- 99
FY99- 00
FY00- 01
FY01- 02
FY02- 03
Revenues
Grants
$ 4,521,897
$ 6,111,629
$ 6,964,850
$ 7,135,428
$ 8,116,034
Sales, Services, & Rental
17,252
22,792
22,638
20,183
24,400
Fees, Licenses, and Fines
18,996
7,900
0
0
0
Contributions & Donations
0
0
125
0
0
Miscellaneous
29,828
1,558
1,516
36
101,788
Intra Governmental Transactions
7,003,108
11,660,149
8,190,946
5,787,444
3,664,648
Total Revenues
$ 11,591,082
$ 17,804,029
$ 15,180,075
$ 12,943,091
$ 11,906,870
Appropriations
123,122,583
133,753,830
137,823,047
130,873,276
129,249,367
Total Revenues and Appropriations
$ 134,713,664
$ 151,557,859
$ 153,003,122
$ 143,816,367
$ 141,156,237
Expenditures By Cost Centers
C. O. - Administration & Support
$ 3,679,994
$ 5,270,814
$ 5,640,221
$ 5,296,936
Training Schools
44,689,796
45,341,097
47,071,518
43,245,247
Community Based Alternatives
22,438,121
17,965,892
20,854,353
20,692,045
JCPC Program
17,610,943
27,511,075
23,724,936
22,765,107
Court Services
23,663,591
28,698,897
29,821,400
27,659,161
Fiscal year
end data
not available at audit release date
Detention Services
15,222,017
15,553,761
16,995,044
15,211,145
SOS
6,948,747
7,097,190
8,366,037
8,537,844
Other
460,455
4,119,132
529,613
408,882
Total Expenditures
$ 134,713,664
$ 151,557,859
$ 153,003,122
$ 143,816,367
Source: North Carolina Accounting System, DJJDP records
The focus of this performance audit was the operations of the five Youth Development Centers ( formerly called Training Schools) and the 14 Detention Centers under DJJDP. As shown in Exhibit 2, the Youth Development Centers account for 30.1% of total expenditures, while the Detention Centers account for another 10.6%.
EXHIBIT 2Breakdown of DJJDP ExpendituresFY2001- 02Training Schools30.1% C. O. - Administration & Support3.7% Other0.3% SOS5.9% Detention Services10.6% Court Services19.2% JCPC Program15.8% Community Based Alternatives14.4%
Source: North Carolina Accounting System and DJJDP financialrecords
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
( This page left blank intentionally.)
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the report details the individual findings and recommendations for each of the major objectives of the audit. To assist the reader, we have listed under the objectives the relevant questions we sought to answer during the audit.
Performance audits, by nature, focus on areas where improvements can be made to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation under audit. The identification of areas for improvement should not be taken to mean that the staff has not performed it duties or provided the State with needed services within the existing resource constraints. The findings and recommendations contained in this report should be viewed in this light.
In fact, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) has made strides in all of the areas highlighted by the 1998 juvenile justice reform effort despite the fact that DJJDP’s establishment did not formally occur until July 2000. DJJDP management report that with just under three years of existence, DJJDP has managed a great deal of change in a context marked by challenges evidenced in the historical record as well as the current condition of State government.
According to research conducted by the 1997 Governor’s Commission on Juvenile Crime and Justice, the historical existence of two state agencies primarily responsible for the supervision and delivery of services to juveniles adjudicated delinquent as well as the provision of prevention programs resulted in “. . . coordination lapses in case management of juveniles; communication barriers and restrictions on the sharing of information; jurisdictional issues when juveniles are released from secure facilities; and a general sense of ‘ territorialism’ between the two agencies.” 1 DJJDP’s most recent accomplishments ( listed in Appendix F, page 125) are illustrative of the fact that it has successfully worked with juvenile code reform, changes in sentencing and dispositions, and an increased emphasis on juvenile delinquency. DJJDP has established a framework for addressing juvenile delinquency through a coordination of service provision along a comprehensive continuum that stretches from youth who are in schools and communities to those who are confined to DJJDP facilities. It provides programs and services that are focused on early prevention as well as those that are oriented toward intervention and confinement. All of its programs and services fit together to form a juvenile justice system which is designed to keep the public safe from juvenile crime as well as to prevent juvenile crime from occurring.
DJJDP management reports that it has accomplished this while establishing the infrastructure of a single department intended to “. . . better coordinate a genuine partnership between [ the] state and communities in dealing with the problems associated with juvenile delinquency.” 2 And DJJDP has done so with a state budget allocation that has decreased each year since its establishment.
1 Governor’s Commission on Juvenile Crime and Justice: Final Report ( February, 1998).
2 Ibid.
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16
Objective 1 - Safety and Security: To examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of abuse at the Youth Development Centers.
TABLE 2
Reasons for Detention
Calendar Year 2002
%
Delinquent ( before disposition)
40.0
Dispositional ( intermittent confinement)
37.4
Dispositional ( 30 days or less)
4.8
Contempt of Court
2.9
Undisciplined
6.1
Out of State Runaway
1.1
Return from Escape
0.8
Status Offender
4.5
Youth Devel. Ctr. Commitment
2.4
Source: DJJDP
A Detention Centers is a secure,
temporary where juveniles sta
residential facility
y while waiting to go to court or until placement can be Youth Development
made in one of the
Centers.
O verview: Established in 2000, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention “ . . . has responsibility for enhancing public safety with regard to juvenile crime and preventing the delinquency and further delinquency of youth3. . .” A major part of DJJDP’s mission is to coordinate juvenile justice strategies in North Carolina by overseeing the State’s juvenile court offices, and Youth Development and Detention Centers. North Carolina’s juvenile courts have original jurisdiction over all youth charged with a law violation who were under the age of 16 at the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court. The court may exercise jurisdiction up to age 21 in certain delinquency cases. The courts also have original jurisdiction over all youth charged with undisciplined offenses who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. These youth are ineligible for commitments to Youth Development Centers. 4
Exhibit 3, page 18, depicts the flow of a juvenile case from complaint to disposition. When a juvenile is arrested by local law enforcement, he/ she will be transported5 by DJJDP personnel to the nearest Detention Center. The mission of the Detention Centers is “. . . to provide a safe, secure, humane environment for the juveniles, opportunities for behavioral change, and quality services and programs to each juvenile based on need. . .” 6 Table 2 shows the major reasons for detention. Detention Centers provide medical, mental health, educational, and support services while the juvenile is there. The average length of stay at a Detention Centers is 11 days. Detention Centers admitted 9,246 juvenile offenders in calendar year 2001 and 8,821 juvenile offenders in 2002.
Once the juvenile has been through his/ her initial court appearance and adjudicated
3 DJJDP web page: www. juvjus. state. nc. us.
4 North Carolina General Statutes, Juvenile Code, Chapter 7B
5 The Youth Development Division of DJJDP operates 27 transportation teams whose job it is “. . . to securely and safely transport the juvenile to the nearest Juvenile Detention Centers.”
6 DJJDP web page. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
delinquent and committed to DJJDP, he/ she is processed at one of DJJDP’s two Assessment and Treatment Centers 7. The juvenile is then assigned to one of the five Youth Development Centers operated by DJJDP. “ The overall mission of the Youth Development Centers is to provide juveniles with a safe, secure environment that fosters healthy decision- making and personal responsibility. The Youth Development Centers also seek to equip juveniles with the skills necessary to become productive citizens in society once they are released.” 8
DJJDP operates five Youth Development Centers and ten Detention Centers located across the State. In addition to the ten Detention Centers operated by DJJDP, four other Detention Centers are operated by counties under contract with DJJDP. ( See Exhibit 4, page 19.) The contracted Detention Centers must follow the North Carolina Minimum Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities and the local county government policies and procedures.
A Youth Development Center ( formerly called training school) is a long- term residential facility where being committed to DP by the cour
juveniles, ages 10-
20, who have violated
the law, reside after
DJJ ts.
In total, the Youth Development Centers have an operational bed capacity of 635 beds for males and 70 beds for females. At present, Samarkand Youth Development Center is the only facility that handles female offenders. The 14 Detention Centers have a total bed capacity of 322, ranging from 48 beds at Guilford to 14 beds at the Buncombe facility. Three of the five Youth Development Centers, Swannanoa, Dillon, and Stonewall Jackson, have perimeter security fences. The type of fence in place at all three of these facilities is a curved top security fence. All five of the Centers have campus style layouts. Most of the buildings used to house juveniles are over 60 years old. The housing units are contained in multiple buildings that are separate and apart from support facilities such as the school, cafeteria, gymnasium, recreation facilities, etc. Most single room layouts are linear in nature and arranged in corridors that either form separate wings or are u- shaped.
7 DJJDP established a centralized Assessment and Treatment Planning Center for males on the C. A. Dillon campus and for females on the Samarkand campus in the fall of 2002. The Dillon center now does the initial processing and assessment ( health, behavioral, educational) before the male juvenile is assigned to one of the Youth Development Centers. Females remain at Samarkand.
8 DJJDP web page.
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EXHIBIT 3
North Carolina
Juvenile Justice Process
Source: DJJDP web page
18
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AlamanceAlexanderAlleghanyAnsonAsheAveryBladenBrunswickBuncombeBurkeCabarrusCaldwellCaswellCatawbaChathamCherokeeClayClevelandC lumbusCumberlandDavidsonDavieDuplinDurhamEdgecombeForsythFranklinGastonGrahamGranvilleGreeneGuilfordHarnettHaywoodHendersonHoke redellJacksonJohnstonLeeLenoirLincolnMcdowellMaconMadisonMecklenburgMitchellMontgomeryMooreNashNew HanoverOrangePenderPersonPolkRandolphRichmondRobesonRockinghamRowanRutherfordSampsonScotlandStanlyStokesSurrySwainTransylvaniaU ionVanceWakeWarrenBeaufortBertieCamdenCarteretChowanCravenCurrituckDareGatesHalifaxHertfordHydeJonesMartinNorthamptonOnslowPaml coPasquotankPerquimansPittTyrrellWashingtonWataugaWayneWilkesWilsonYadkinYanceyEXHIBIT 4Youth Development System Bed CapacityAs of December 2002Buncombe Detention 14 BedsSwannanoa Valley YDC 258 BedsGaston Detention 24 BedsGatling Detention 30 Beds ( County) Stonewall Jackson YDC 93 BedsRichmond Detention 30 BedsSamarkand Manor YDC 70 BedsCumberland Detention 18 BedsNew Hanover Detention 18 BedsSource: DJJDPDobbs YDC 144 BedsPitt Detention 18 BedsPerquimans Detention 24 BedsWake Detention 24 BedsC. A. Dillon YDC 140 BedsUmstead Detention 20 BedsDurham Detention 14 Beds ( County) Guilford Detention 48 Beds ( County) Forsyth Detention 16 Beds ( County) Alexander Detention 24 Beds 19
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M ethodology: To examine safety and security issues, we conducted site visits to each of the five Youth Development Centers and six of the fourteen Detention Centers. As part of the site visits, an architectural expert who was part of the audit team, toured the buildings, discussed security and safety issues with staff, and examined recent renovations and their effects. Detailed reviews of each building used to house juveniles in secure environments at each of the Centers were conducted. Buildings used to provide support services such as school, treatment, food service, etc., were also surveyed for physical security measures. Each of the five sites was examined for perimeter security and access control. We then examined DJJDP’s Policy and Procedures Manual as well as each facility’s Standard Operating Procedures Manual as it related to security and operations. We also examined DJJDP plans for capital improvement projects, as well as the Facilities Condition Assessment Program reports generated by the Office of State Construction for the Centers. Additionally, we reviewed data on the number of attempted and actual escapes at each Center, and examined average daily population data for the Centers. Interviews and discussions with former juvenile offenders, parents, former employees, and advocacy groups were also conducted. Lastly, at each location, we judgmentally selected and reviewed a sample of alleged child abuse cases for calendar years 1999- 2002 for compliance with regulations and policies and to understand the types of safety situations that occur in the Centers. To assess the safety for staff, we also examined workers’ compensation claims for incidents involving juvenile actions against staff. This section discusses the systemic findings relative to safety and security. Appendix B, page 91, contains findings and observations on safety and security for each Youth Development Center.
C on
clusions: The Youth Development Centers are housed in facilities that are, for the most part, over 60 years old. Half of the Detention Centers are 30- 40 years old. Most Centers are in poor physical condition. The age and construction of the Centers increases the security risks. The concrete masonry unit walls are not reinforced or filled solid with grout as is typical of new construction for these types of facilities today. All of the Centers do not have site security and access control measures. The use of electronic security measures is virtually non- existent. Security risks are further increased by the Centers’ campus style layouts which require movement of offenders from secured housing units to various less secure buildings. Abandoned buildings obscure lines of sight allowing opportunities for escapes. Poor building layouts and high juvenile to staff ratios lessens the safety for both offenders and staff. Overcrowding at Detention Centers can result in less than optimum housing conditions for the offenders and increased pressure and stress on staff. Lastly, staff are confused over what, when, and to whom to report suspected incidents of abuse due to inconsistent policies and procedures. Estimates of the costs to achieve needed repairs and renovations, and to address equipment needs are approximately $ 44 million. DJJDP management estimates the cost to construct three new Youth Development facilities to replace the existing Centers to be $ 90 million.
20
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS- SAFETY AND SECURITY
Security Issues:
ALL YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS DO NOT HAVE SITE SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES.
Three of the five Youth Development Centers, Swannanoa, Dillon, and Stonewall Jackson, have perimeter security fences. The type of fence in place at all three of these facilities is a curved top security fence manufactured by “ First Defense”. The fence is constructed of chain link fence fabric stretched between vertical support posts. The upper half of the curved section has a close mesh wire fabric applied over the standard fabric to prevent finger holds and deter climbing. There is no use of barbed wire or razor ribbon on any of the perimeter fences to further deter escape. DJJDP management feels that, with the population of youth in their custody, the risk of injury from the use of razor ribbon outweighs any benefits of its use. All three facilities are maintaining an appropriate clear- cut area on both sides of the fence to prevent trees and vegetation from being used as aids in climbing or jumping ( from trees) over the fence. Debris that falls on the fence is being removed in a timely manner. Without moving to much more costly alternatives, such as double row fencing and monitored taut wire systems, the system is an appropriate application for these facilities.
Site access to the fenced facilities is via monitored remote control electric sliding gates, manual double vehicle gates that are secured with multiple chains and padlocks, and personnel gates with remote control electric locks. At one of the unfenced facilities, Samarkand Youth Development Center, site access is controlled by a single monitored remote controlled wooden gate arm. Dobbs Youth Development Center does not have any site security or access control measures.
The use of electronic security measures, however, such as closed- circuit television ( CCTV), access controls, remote operated locks, panic / duress alarms, central monitoring, metal detectors, etc., is virtually nonexistent. Closed circuit television is used to monitor the remote operated fence gates at the three centers with perimeter fences, as well as limited locations at the other Centers. ( See Table 3, page 22.) The resolution on some of these monitors is so poor that only the basic shape of a vehicle is discernable. None of the Centers utilize card- key access systems ( card readers), panic / duress alarms or central station monitoring ( security control rooms). The exception is “ E” Cottage at Dillon, which is now operated as a Detention Center and does not house juveniles associated with the Youth Development Center.
21
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With the exception of McWhorter and Kirk Cottages and the main office at Stonewall Jackson, there are no other remote operated locks used at Centers. The main office door has an electric strike, while McWhorter and Kirk juvenile room and housing wing exit doors utilize electromagnetic locks with group unlock function. Dillon is the only facility with a walk- through magnetometer ( metal detector). All other facilities use hand wands, primarily at visitation periods. Many housing units had only one portable radio per housing wing, while others had a fixed base unit.
TABLE 3
Use of Security Technology at Youth Development Centers
CENTER
UNIT
TECHNOLOGY
MONITORED FROM
Stonewall Jackson
Holshouser Cottage
1 juvenile room with fixed CCTV
unit office on a black and white monitor
Kirk Cottage
1 juvenile room with CCTV
no monitor in the unit office
McWhorter;
Kirk Cottages
intercom system
capable of two- way communication with the juvenile rooms
Samarkand
Ireland Cottage
fixed CCTV coverage in the dayroom, laundry room, corridor and dormitory
1 black and white monitor in the unit office
Frye Cottage
fixed CCTV coverage in the dayroom, corridors and 1 juvenile room
unit office on 1 black and white monitor
Mitchell Cottage
fixed CCTV in the dayroom, corridors and 1 juvenile room
unit office on 1 black and white monitor
Carroll Building
houses the infirmary, housing wing with CCTV in corridor and 1 juvenile room
unit office on 1 black and white monitor; also has a black and white monitor for fixed camera at site gate arm and controls for gate arm
Source: Compiled by OSA Audit Team from Observations
However, all Centers, with the exception of Dillon have security staffs. Swannanoa, through the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, has an accredited police force initially authorized by the General Assembly following two homicides committed by juveniles prior to the establishment of DJJDP. The officers have arrest powers and carry weapons. The other Centers have four to six person security staffs that provide coverage on the first and second shifts.
A review of DJJDP policies and procedures for site security and access revealed that the policies were outdated. However, DJJDP is in the process of updating all policies and procedures. 9
9 DJJDP was operating under the old North Carolina Administrative Code regarding training centers ( now Youth Development Centers) under DHHS. This code had not been revised in over 10 years. Before DJJDP could establish new policies and procedures, the Administrative Code had to be updated.
22
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP management should place a priority on updating and approving the policies and procedures regarding security and safety issues. Further, management should devise a plan to address the safety and security shortcomings outlined above, requesting additional funding as needed. The estimated cost to fence Dobbs and Samarkand is $ 2.2 million. If the fences are constructed, DJJDP should continue to evaluate the use of inmate labor supplied by the Department of Correction to construct the fences ( as was done at Swannanoa) as a means of controlling costs. The estimated cost of installing surveillance cameras is $ 412,500. Lastly, providing additional radios could also enhance the use of two- way radio communications and improve safety and security at the Centers. The estimated cost to provide these radios is $ 174,700.
SECURITY RISKS ARE INCREASED BY THE CENTERS’ CAMPUS STYLE LAYOUTS.
All five of the Centers have campus style layouts. Housing units at each Center are contained in multiple buildings that are separate and apart from support facilities such as the school, cafeteria, gymnasium, recreation facilities, etc. Having each function contained in a separate building requires movement of the juveniles from their secured housing units to these various less secure buildings. This creates a security risk by either requiring staff needed elsewhere to escort juveniles or having no staff escort and relying on visual observation of juveniles by staff located in various buildings, communicating by two- way radio the movement and actions of the juveniles. Movement of juveniles is further hindered by abandoned buildings on some campuses obscuring the view or affording hiding locations for juveniles who may choose to run and attempt escape. Table 4 shows the number of escapes and attempted escapes from the Centers for fiscal years 1998- 99 through 2001- 02. The number of escapes decreased at Swannanoa when a fence was installed in fiscal year 1999- 2000. The risk of flight is further elevated at Dobbs and Samarkand since they do not have perimeter security fencing. Also, having juveniles of different ages, classifications, gang affiliations, etc., interact with one another in conditions such as school class changes, where supervision is less than adequate, creates an environment that fosters behavior leading to intimidation and assaults.
TABLE 4
NUMBER OF ESCAPES AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPES
FROM YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Fiscal Years 1998- 99 through 2001- 02
Escapes
Dillon
Dobbs
Jackson
Samarkand
** Swannanoa
Total
Attempted
Escapes
Fiscal
Year
* Home
Center
Home
Center
Home
Center
Home
Center
Home
Center
Home
Center
Home
Center
2001- 02
1
3
0
35
2
15
4
15
7
14
14
82
3
52
2000- 01
3
1
1
24
4
8
5
28
11
11
24
72
0
36
1999- 00
2
0
1
33
4
8
1
14
16
9
24
64
Not
Available
1998- 99
3
1
8
28
15
5
7
32
16
45
49
111
Not
Available
Total
9
5
10
120
25
36
17
89
50
79
111
329
3
88
* “ Home” indicates the number of escapes while the offender was on temporary home leave.
** Number of escapes decreased after security fence installed.
Source: DJJDP Records
23
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP management, along with administrators at each Center, should re- examine the use of buildings and movement of juveniles on campus. The goal should be to minimize the need to move juveniles from secure locations to less secure locations. Additionally, staffing levels at each Center should be examined to assure adequate coverage at all times. ( See page 61 for discussion of staffing issues.)
THE AGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF CENTER BUILDINGS INCREASES THE SECURITY RISKS.
The average age of the buildings used to house juveniles is 63 years. The majority of buildings housing juveniles have very poor sight lines. In fact, some have no sight lines from staff stations for observation / supervision of juveniles in dayrooms, toilet / shower areas, and corridors containing juvenile rooms. With the exception of Reid Cottage at the Dobbs Youth Development Center, which has dormitory style housing, most single room layouts are linear in nature and arranged in corridors that either form separate wings or are u- shaped. These layouts are not conducive to the management of the classification of juveniles typically confined in the system today. Exhibit 5 shows admissions by type of offense. The juveniles are more violent, adjudicated for more serious offenses, and are older than the type of juveniles for which the facilities were originally designed. Inadequate observation and more violent offenders have lead to increased vandalism of the facilities.
Felony A- E
Felony F- 1
Murder
Manslaughter
Violent sex offense
Aggravated Assault
Kidnapping
Arson
Armed Robbery
�� Burglary
Discharging firearm into occupied property
Other offenses
Involuntary manslaughter
Burglary 2nd Degree
Arson 2nd Degree
Larceny
Felonious possession of stolen goods
Forgery
Crimes against nature
Taking indecent liberties with children Burning personal property
Possession of a weapon
Possession of Controlled substances
Assault with a deadly weapon
�� Assault on child under 12
Assault on an officer/ state employee
Assault on school employee
Assault by pointing a gun
Others F- I offenses
Misdemeanor 1- 3
Post- Release Supervision
Simple Assault
Breaking and entering
Hit and Run
Common law robbery
Larceny
Shoplifting
Credit card theft
Injury to real property
Injury to personal property
Possession of weapon at school
Communicating threats
Disorderly conduct
Driving without a license
Possession of controlled substance
Other 1- 3 misdemeanors
Curfew violation
Failure to attend school
Failure to cooperate with placement
Failure to cooperate with specific treatment programs
Failure to meet other requirements
Positive drug test results
Running away from home or placement
Suspended from school. EXHIBIT 5 ADMISSIONS BY OFFENSECALENDAR YEAR 2002A- E FELONY20.3% F- 1 FELONY64.5% 1- 3 MISDEMEANOR9.3% POST RELEASE6.0% Source: DJJDP Website
24
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
When constructed, the concrete masonry unit walls were not reinforced or filled solid with grout, as is typical of new construction for these type facilities today. As a result, juveniles are able to, and have, picked the deteriorated mortar from joints and removed portions of walls. All juvenile- sleeping rooms have hard ceilings ( gypsum board, concrete plank, or metal pan); however, most corridors and some dayrooms have fully accessible acoustic lay- in ceilings. Accessible ceilings provide the opportunity to hide contraband and, in at least one instance, enabled a juvenile to climb into the ceiling and get above the mechanical ductwork. The ceiling had to be removed in order to extricate the juvenile.
With the exception of three buildings, all locks are manually operated keyed locks. There are some Folger Adam Model 82- 6 security locks with paracentric keys but most are non- security commercial grade keyed deadbolts. The non- security doorframes installed in the walls are not anchored in the manor required for this type of population. The frames are literally being kicked out of the walls by repeated blows to the doors. Many doorframes are also rusted out in the lower jambs due to juveniles repeatedly flooding their rooms by stopping up and overflowing the toilets. Many of the remaining original doors are bowed and separating at the seams, requiring constant maintenance. Also, many of the juvenile room doors swing inward into the room allowing the doors to be barricaded from the inside and making extraction extremely difficult. While there are some security grade exterior doors with security locks and hardware, the vast majority are commercial grade standard hollow metal or glass doors with non- security builder’s hardware and locks. Glazing in most original doors is ¼ ” thick polycarbonate. In new medium and maximum doors recently installed, the Office of the State Fire Marshall required ¼ ” thick wire glass be installed on either side of the polycarbonate. The juveniles have broken most of the wire glass causing it to fracture and obscure or eliminate any vision into the rooms, meaning staff have no way of knowing what to expect when the door is opened.
The security of most windows is accomplished by the use of interior mounted medium security screens. In addition to the security screens, many windows have additional barriers constructed of hinged steel angle frames with expanded metal mesh attached to the exterior of the building and secured with padlocks. While some of the original security screens have been replaced in recent years, the remaining screens are damaged and rusting. In housing buildings without central air conditioning, window air conditioners have been installed in dayrooms. These units are not secure and can simply be kicked out, leaving an opening directly to the exterior. Exterior windows are not of a security grade and are glazed with either tempered glass or ¼ ” polycarbonate.
The Centers’ housing units have a mixture of rooms with and without toilet facilities in the rooms, commonly known as “ wet” and “ dry” cells. Most wet rooms have stainless steel combination penal fixtures, while others have vitreous china fixtures. None of the fixtures have provisions for controlling overflows. Juvenile rooms are outfitted with steel bunks bolted to floors or walls, steel combination shelving and writing surface units, security mirrors, light fixtures, etc., most considerably aged. Lighting levels in most rooms appear to be inadequate.
25
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
26
Buildings housing support facilities such as school, cafeteria, gymnasium, vocations, and recreation do not have any security measures other than locks on the doors. Many of these buildings are also in poor physical condition. For instance, the gymnasium at Samarkand is infested with bats and unusable. See pictures starting on page 53.
RECOMMENDATION
Using the shortcomings identified above, DJJDP and Center administrators should prioritize needed repairs and renovations to ensure the security and safety of the juveniles and staff. Buildings that can no longer be used should be identified and new construction considered. ( See discussion on page 21.)
What improvements / renovations would be neededat the Centers to improve the safety and security of both
THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND DETENTION CENTERS BUILDINGS ARE IN POOR CONDITION.
the juveniles and
the staff?
During the site visits, we noted that the maintenance staffs are performing an outstanding job in keeping the facilities operational with limited resources. While DJJDP does not have a formal preventive maintenance program in place, the maintenance staffs at each facility do perform routine maintenance of mechanical and electrical systems. However, due to the age and condition of the buildings, the maintenance staffs are constantly repairing doors, windows, locks, plumbing fixtures, walls, roofs, etc. On the various campuses, we noted condemned buildings, outdated or inoperable air conditioning systems, unpaved parking lots and roads, broken windows, damaged doors, etc. Major infrastructure needs have not been addressed due to lack of funds. As an example, fire alarm systems need to be upgraded at most facilities. Items such as leaking roofs have not been addressed. The day of the site visit at the Buncombe Detention Centers, staff had numerous large waste containers in the rooms to catch leaking water. See pictures starting on page 53.
Currently, the money spent on repair and renovation of the facilities is merely keeping them patched together without making any substantial gains towards real improvements. Thus, recent security upgrades are not as effective as could be due to the age and construction of the buildings. For example, new maximum- security doors were installed in the B- Wing of Greenwood Cottage at Swannanoa. However, these particular doors are too heavy to be carried by the original doorframes. They are not anchored for this type of construction and the doors are causing the frames to become dislodged from the deteriorated concrete block walls. Ultimately, the security doors may become a security shortcoming themselves. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 5
Summary of Facility Condition Assessment Program Reports on
Youth Development Centers-- 2002
Center
# Deficiencies
Estimated Costs
Dillon
29
$ 3,017,000
Dobbs
57
4,295,000
Samarkand
73
4,831,500
Swannanoa
65
4,795,000
Jackson
63
1,528,200
TOTAL
287
$ 18,466,700
Source: FCAP Reports, Office of State Construction
Larger repairs and renovations are identified by the Facility Condition Assessment Program ( FCAP) section of the State Construction Office. For the year 2000, the FCAP section estimated needed repairs and renovations at the Youth Development Centers to be $ 18.5 million, as shown in Table 5. DJJDP management identified additional repair and renovations needed over and above the FCAP reports and included $ 22.5 million for the Youth Development and Detention Centers in its fiscal year 1999- 00 budget request to the General Assembly. Because of the State’s budget shortfall, this request was not acted upon. Additionally, DJJDP made a funding request in fiscal year 2002- 03 to study the construction of three new Youth Development Centers. DJJDP estimates the cost to be $ 90 million. The General Assembly approved $ 1 million to fund the programming and design costs for new facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
We commend DJJDP management for its foresight in requesting funds to construct three new Youth Development facilities, and we fully support the need for new facilities. New facilities would not only improve the security and safety of the juvenile offenders and staff, but would offer significant operational and management savings from more efficient operations. Since plans for the new facilities have not been finalized, we encourage DJJDP to develop several options for the consideration of the General Assembly. One such option might be to construct five new, smaller facilities at the current locations or on nearby State- owned land. A second option worth consideration is building three new facilities and significantly renovating two existing facilities. While we cannot estimate the cost of these two options, both would allow DJJDP to provide residential services at locations across the State and to minimize the distances relatives would have to travel to visit the juveniles.
Auditor’s Note: Since the completion of the fieldwork, DJJDP has contracted with an architectural firm for the planning, design, and site studies for three new Youth Development Centers.
27
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Safety Issues:
BUILDING LAYOUT AND STAFFING RATIOS CONTRIBUTE TO UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
TABLE 6
Summary of
Youth Development and Detention Centers
Workers’ Compensation Claims
2000- 2002
375 claims for juvenile to staff injuries
1,408 lost days of work
2,814 restricted days of work
$ 128,767 in short- term disability
$ 640,043 in medical costs
Source: Workers’ Compensation claims filed with the IndustrialCommission
The State’s budget situation has had a profound effect on all State agencies, resulting in lost positions and increasing workloads for the remaining staff. This situation has been magnified in agencies that are responsible for providing around the clock staffing, such as the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Youth Development and Detention Centers are around the clock residential facilities for youthful offenders. With the passage of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act and the creation of DJJDP, the philosophy was modified from a correctional model to a therapeutic model. The Centers have experienced a decline in the number of juveniles committed, with more being served by community programs. However, there has been a significant shift in the types of juveniles being committed, to a more violent population who are more prone to acting out. At the same time the Centers are experiencing a need for more staff to safely handle these more difficult juveniles, staffing has decreased significantly. ( See page 61 for discussion of staffing levels.)
When the staffing decreases are combined with the poor building layout for most of the Centers, the safety of both juveniles and staff may be put at risk. Most of the buildings were constructed prior to 1973. The most prevalent floor plan, especially for the residential cottages, is shown in Exhibit 6, page 29. The centrally located “ supervisor’s station” makes it almost impossible for a single cottage technician or even two cottage technicians to know what is happening on all halls at the same time. Thus, the number of physical incidents, especially during sleeping hours, has increased as has the number of juvenile actions against staff. Table 6 shows the results of a review of workers’ compensation claims relating to staff injuries due to juvenile actions for the past three years.
28
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
29
EXHIBIT 6
Youth Development Center
Example of Cottage Layout
15
12
11
14
13
10
9
8
16
office
6
7
3
4
5
day room
Source: DJJDP
2
1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP management should identify the most critical physical layout problems and take steps to amend them. A funding request should be made to the General Assembly for short- term renovations to these sites. Staffing levels for these sites should also be closely examined to determine whether they could be improved. Lastly, management should continue to pursue funding for new construction. ( See discussion on page 26.)
SOME STATE OPERATED JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS ARE OVERCROWDED.
The mission of the Juvenile Detention Centers is to provide a safe, secure, humane environment for juveniles and staff, to provide juveniles an opportunity for behavioral change, and to provide quality services and programs for juveniles based on their individual needs. In order to maintain a safe, secure, and humane environment for both staff and juvenile offenders awaiting court hearings and completed placement orders, DJJDP has established maximum bed capacity for each Center. Placement of juvenile offenders in a specific Detention Centers is usually based on the county where the offense occurred, the convenience of the juvenile or his/ her family to facilitate visits, and the mandated services the juvenile should receive. For juveniles arrested at night who are transported by local law enforcement officers, DJJDP has agreed to allow the officer to transport to the nearest Detention Center to minimize driving time. If that center is over- crowded, then DJJDP personnel transport the juvenile the next day to the nearest center with available space.
DJJDP records were examined to determine the average daily population at the ten State and four county operated Detention Centers. Six ( 43%) of the Centers exceeded maximum bed capacity at times during the past five fiscal years. ( See Table 7, page 31.) The overcrowding in Detention Centers creates immediate safety and security concerns for the juveniles and for the staff responsible for providing their care. In reviewing incident reports, we noted overcrowding can cause less than optimum housing conditions for the juveniles through inadequate sleeping conditions, neglect of personal hygiene / sanitation conditions, and/ or increased incidents of violent encounters among the juveniles. It also increases pressures on detention management who are dealing with existing staff shortages. Appendix A, page 89, shows the number of admission by county. Since DJJDP policy is to place juvenile offenders in the Detention Center nearest the county where the offense is committed, the Centers showing overcrowding are ones serving counties where juveniles are committing more offenses.
30
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 7
Detention Centers Average Juvenile Population
Highlighted entries exceed bed capacity.
Detention Centers
FY2002- 03
FY2001- 02
Bed Capacity**
FY2000- 01
FY1999- 00
FY1998- 99
Average
Alexander/ Wilkes
18
16
13
14
13
14.8
24
Buncombe
10
13
12
14
15
12.8
14
Cumberland
25
23
24
23
23
23.6
18
Durham *
9
9
10
13
14
11
14
Forsyth *
11
13
13
16
15
13.6
16
Gaston
24
25
28
29
31
27.4
24
Gatling *
23
21
24
26
24
23.6
25
Guilford *
29
32
41
34
26
32.4
48
New Hanover
19
16
22
21
22
20
18
Perquimans
15
14
16
7
N/ A
13
24
Pitt
24
23
23
20
20
22
18
Richmond
25
17
17
15
10
16.8
30
Umstead
13
16
19
22
24
18.8
20***
Wake
22
21
24
24
20
22.2
24
Total Detention Centers
267
259
286
278
257
272
317
% Change from prior year
3%
- 9%
3%
8%
* These are county run facilities.
** Each room is double bunked for a maximum capacity. Sex and/ or violent offenders are required to be housed in a single bunked room.
*** Umstead had a bed capacity of 32 but was reduced to 20 when the center was relocated to the Dillon Campus.
Source: DJJDP records
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP should continue to monitor the number of juveniles housed at each Detention Center closely in order to prevent overcrowding. Existing procedures to transfer juveniles to other centers should be followed when overcrowding is detected. Further, DJJDP should examine the number of commitments by county to determine whether more Detention Centers are needed.
DJJDP’s REPORTING SYSTEM FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE AND NEGLECT INCIDENTS IS NOT CONSISTENT OR EFFECTIVELY DOCUMENTED.
Regulations governing DJJDP operations and DJJDP policy require staff who witnesses or have knowledge of any special incidents, such as, corporal punishment, sexual acting out, or child abuse and neglect10, file a written report of the incident with the facility Director. Further, any juvenile involved in an actual or suspected incident of abuse or neglect is to be seen immediately by the school physician on call and a report of the juvenile’s physical condition filed with the school Director. 11 Failure to report suspected
10 Title 9, North Carolina Administrative Code 5F. 1305( 1): “. . . all suspected instances of child abuse shall be reported to the local Director of Social Services within 24 hours of identification of such an instance.” June 2002.
11 Title 9 of North Carolina Administrative Code 5F. 1305( 2). Effective July 15, 2002, Title 9, NCAC 5A- 5F was repealed.
31
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
child abuse and neglect allegations within 24 hours jeopardizes the safety and security of the juvenile as well as exposes DJJDP to potential lawsuits. Based on a sample of abuse and neglect reports, 44% were not reported within 24 hours.
During site visits to the Youth Development Centers, we judgmentally selected a sample of 131 alleged child abuse and neglect cases for calendar years 1999- 2002 to determine whether incidents were being reported in compliance with regulations. The dates of reported incidents were determined by reviewing documentation: case summary letters from local County Department of Social Services ( DSS), follow- up letters from facility Directors to local County DSS, Special Incident, Use of Force, and Body Check reports, and written statements from juveniles and witnesses. As shown in Table 8, 60% of the Special Incident reports and 86% of the Body Check/ Injury reports were missing. Further, we found that:
TABLE 8
Results of Abuse and Neglect Reporting Documentation Review
Special Incident
Body Check/ Injury Verification
Not Reported Within 24 Hours
Location
Sample Size
# Missing Documents
Percent Missing
# Missing Documents
Percent Missing
# Not Reported
Percent
Dillon
32
13
41%
29
91%
15
47%
Dobbs
33
22
67%
26
79%
11
33%
Swannanoa
33
23
70%
31
94%
19
58%
Samarkand
20
15
75%
19
95%
7
35%
Jackson
13
6
46%
8
62%
6
46%
Totals
131*
79
60%
113
86%
58
44%
* 13 of 131 abuse and neglect cases examined were reported by non- DJJDP employees.
Source: Youth Development Centers Records
Only one facility ( 20%) maintained a log of suspected child abuse and neglect incidents.
Only one facility ( 20%) had additional written detailed procedures supplementing the departmental procedures.
Two facilities ( 40%) require staff to verbally report alleged abuse and neglect incidents to the facility Director, who reports the incident to the County DSS.
Four of the facilities ( 80%) perform informal investigations; however, there are no written procedures to address this process.
The reasons for non- compliance to the reporting policies were varied. The main reason appeared to be confusion over what, when, and to whom to report the incident. This confusion resulted from inconsistent or missing policies and procedures. Discussions with parents and former offenders brought out the concerns that all incidents of abuse and neglect may not be reported. They felt the reasons were retaliation against the informant and because it is a self- monitoring system where the allegation can stop at any point in the chain of command. We found nothing to indicate that all incidents were not reported, however.
DJJDP is in the process of updating the policies; however, at the time of the fieldwork, these had not been approved. Thus, the Centers were still operating under procedures established by the Division of Youth Services. These procedures required each Center to have written procedures in place readily available to staff to ensure all reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation are immediately communicated to the appropriate persons and/ or agencies. The lack of specific and consistent procedures among the Youth
32
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development and Detention Centers contributes to staff confusion, incorrect / untimely reporting, and may jeopardize the safety of the juveniles. 12
RECOMMENDATION
All suspected child abuse allegations should be reported to the local County Department of Social Services, DJJDP Facility Director, and DJJDP Central Office within the established timelines as previously prescribed under the North Carolina Administrative Code. Policies and procedures should be updated and revised as soon as possible to mirror those regulations. Specific, step- by- step procedures including a checklist should outline timeframes, chain- of- command reporting, and document requirements. A system for distributing and updating these procedure manuals should also be implemented. Once the revised polices and procedures are finalized, all staff should receive training on reporting suspected child abuse allegations. Annual training should be mandated and documented for all employees. This training should be coordinated with local County Department of Social Services personnel to ensure that all parties understand the process and their part in it. Further, suspected child abuse records should be centralized within the facility Director’s office, a list of all reported suspected abuse should be maintained, and controls implemented to secure records. DJJDP management should strongly consider establishing an independent committee for each facility composed of employees, local county Department of Social Services staff, local law enforcement officials, judges, district attorneys, parents, and concerned citizens to periodically review the overall process for reporting and investigating incidents of abuse and neglect and to make recommendations for improvements to protect the informant and juvenile from possible retaliation.
12 Just prior to the beginning of the audit fieldwork, a number of sexual abuse allegations were filed against the Swannanoa Youth Development Center. Legal proceedings were still underway at this writing. 33
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective 2 – Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation: To determine the effectiveness of training, education, and treatment, rehabilitation programs.
O verview: Any juvenile committed to a Youth Development Center must spend at least six months. The maximum commitment time depends on the type of offense committed and the juvenile's progress in the treatment programs while at the Center. The majority of juveniles committed to the Youth Development Centers are between 14 and 16 years old, with an average length of stay of 13 ½ months. Approximately 60% of the offenders in the Centers have specific identified needs, as shown in Exhibit 7. DJJDP is now placing more emphasis on the therapeutic, rather than the correctional, model of services to juveniles, offering educational, clinical, medical, vocational, and recreational programs. The Centers contract for medical, dental, and psychiatric services, in addition to having psychologists, social workers, and teachers on staff. The Centers seek to equip offenders with the skills necessary to become productive citizens in society once they are released.
Sex Offender10% Disabilities34% EXHIBIT 7Therapeutic and Education Needs of Juveniles in Youth Development Centers FY2000- 01 Source: DJJDP Statistical Reports 050100150200250Hearing Speech/ LanguageHealth Educable MentalLearning DisabledBehavior/ EmotionTYPES AND PREVALENCE OF DISABILITIES Other 39% On Psychotropic Medication 17%
Sex Offender10% Disabilities34% Hearing No Special Needs 34
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M ethodology: To evaluate training and education programs for juveniles, we conducted site visits to each Youth Development Center, interviewed educational staff, and reviewed a sample of juvenile education files. The files review was conducted to determine whether they contained the required documents as designated by education policies and procedures. We also evaluated instructional budget data for Center schools, comparing it to other school districts in the State. Additionally, we interviewed DJJDP Central Office staff with education program responsibilities, as well as persons within the State Department of Public Instruction. Lastly, we examined data on the number of offenders who receive GEDs while at the Centers and compared DJJDP educational funding to funding for other Local Education Authority ( LEAs) in the State. An educational expert who was a member of the audit team participated in the site visits, interviews, and data review.
To evaluate the treatment and rehabilitation programs for juveniles, we conducted site visits to each Youth Development Center, interviewed clinical staff, and reviewed a sample of clinical files. Additionally, we interviewed DJJDP Central Office staff with clinical program responsibilities, as well as persons within the State Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical policies and procedures were reviewed. A clinical expert who was a member of the audit team participated in the site visits, interviews, and data review.
Appendix B, page 91, contains findings and observations relative to the training/ education and treatment / rehabilitation programs for each Youth Development Center. Below are the systemic findings relative to the training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs at the Centers.
C
onclusions: The Youth Development Center schools, classified as alternative schools by DPI, still must participate to some extent in North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study. However, the requirements of that course of study are not applicable to a substantial number of the juvenile offenders. Approximately 61% of offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs / disabilities when committed to the Centers, with about 60% of them not functionally literate according to teachers. On average, only 13.2% of the offenders have completed a GED while at the Youth Development Centers. Research shows that youth offenders who complete a GED or vocational program are twice as likely to be employed after release. Further, there did not appear to be a rationale for the different specialized programs at the various Centers, community leaders had little input into the vocational education courses offered, and there was no systematic follow- up to assess vocational training or to assist the juveniles in obtaining jobs in areas where they had received training. Youth development center instructional budgets are not sufficient, did not include any funding from local education authorities, and did not have any input from departmental stakeholders. Lastly, DJJDP education administrators face unique challenges from a LEA that stretches across the State.
35
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The treatment and rehabilitation programs offered to juvenile offenders also face enormous challenges. From a departmental perspective, there is a lack of clarity about the importance and role of clinical treatment and rehabilitation in the system. Treatment programs at most Centers were disorganized, lacked resources, and may not be allotted enough time. Staff are confused on how to transition from a corrections to individual needs based clinical philosophy. Yet, there are several model programs ongoing within the system. Major shortcomings were noted in the ability to maintain active group treatment programs, and offering much needed family treatment options. Provision of these services would better justify the State’s considerable investment ($ 55,029 annually per bed) in the juvenile offenders. Lastly, the centralized Assessment and Treatment Planning Center approach represents a significant potential improvement to the clinical system. However, much work remains to integrate it in the education / treatment options at the Youth Development Centers.
FINDINGS— JUVENILE TRAINING, EDUCATION,
TREATMENT, REHABILITATION
Juvenile Training and Education Issues:
How effective are the education, training, treatment, and ehabilitatio r nprograms at
THE NORTH CAROLINA STANDARD COURSE OF STUDY IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEEDS OF THE JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
the Centers?
Many of the juveniles committed to the Youth Development Centers have already failed in the public school system. Most are three to four grade levels behind when they come to the Centers and, as shown in Exhibit 7, page 34, 61% of the offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs. Center teachers estimate that approximately 60% of the juveniles in the Centers are not functionally literate when they are committed. One of DJJDP’s stated goals is to equip juveniles committed to the Centers with the skills they need to become productive citizens upon release. Yet, the Centers’ teachers estimate that 50% are still not functionally literate upon release, even though students in the specialized reading program make at least one month gain in reading scores for every month of enrollment. 13
Currently, the Youth Development Center schools, classified as Alternative Schools, still must participate to some extent in North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study. 14 However, the requirements for that course of study are not applicable to a substantial
13 Local Accountability Options Outcomes for 2001- 02 ( July 5, 2002).
14 Recent NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND federal legislation will impact the educational program at the Youth Development Centers. 36
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
number of juvenile offenders. Thus, these juveniles spend the school day, approximately 5 ½ hours, engaged in a curriculum where they have previously experienced little if any success. DJJDP’s data does not show any juveniles who received a high school diploma while at the Centers. One recent study suggests this type curriculum is irrelevant for this population. 15
According to the study, “ incarcerated adolescents function in the low- average to below- average range of intelligence, perform academically between fifth and ninth- grade levels, and have histories of high rates of academic failures and grade retention.” 16 This study found that youth offenders who completed a GED or vocational program were twice as likely to be employed after their release compared to youth who had not completed these programs. Table 9 gives data on the number of juveniles receiving GEDs while at North Carolina’s Youth Development Centers. As shown in the table, only 13.2% of the offenders received GEDs in the last 3 ½ years.
TABLE 9
Percent of GED Graduates based on Average Daily Population
Fiscal Year
2002- 03*
2001- 02
2000- 01
1999- 00
Total
CENTER
# GEDs
Avg. Pop.
% of Pop.**
# GEDs
Avg. Pop.
% of Pop.
# GEDs
Avg. Pop.
% of Pop.
# GEDs
Avg. Pop.
% of Pop.
# GEDs
3- 1/ 2yr Pop.
% of Pop.**
Dillon
9
131
13.7%
12
121
9.9%
9
131
6.9%
12
130
9.2%
42
513
9.9%
Dobbs
2
122
3.3%
8
111
7.2%
29
157
18.5%
18
171
10.5%
57
561
10.5%
Samarkand
2
60
6.7%
25
156
16.0%
31
205
15.1%
37
203
18.2%
95
624
15.5%
Jackson
11
97
22.7%
30
92
32.6%
11
153
7.2%
29
154
18.8%
81
496
18.5%
Swannanoa
8
192
8.3%
32
215
14.9%
26
238
10.9%
36
254
14.2%
102
899
12.2%
Total
32
602
10.6%
107
695
15.4%
106
884
12.0%
132
912
14.5%
377
3093
13.2%
* 2002- 03 is from July to December 2002
** Adjusted for Estimated Annual Percentage
Source: DJJDP
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP management should petition the State Board of Education and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to modify the Standard Course of Study for the Youth Development Center schools. The modified curriculum should more closely address the needs of the juvenile offenders. This curriculum should include elements of the Standard Course of Study, along with:
basic / applied skill instruction,
general equivalency degree ( GED) and workforce investment act ( WIA) programs,
community based instruction and related employability skills training,
career pathway curriculum and vocational programs based on labor market demand,
literacy programs,
pro- social skills training,
physical / health education and recreation programs,
art, music, and drama,
performing arts opportunities for juveniles both on and off campus, and
animal therapy programs.
15 Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Winter 2001, Regina Foley, Professor of Educational Psychology and Special Education at Southern Illinois University Development Centers.
16 Ibid.
37
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS’ EDUCATION FILES FOR INDIVIDUAL JUVENILES WERE INCOMPLETE.
Schools within each of the Youth Development Centers are required to maintain juvenile education records for all juveniles within the facility. During site visits at the Centers, the audit team reviewed education files to determine whether the required documentation, per policies, was included. Table 10 below summarizes the results of the file review. The review revealed that education documents were not filed in a central location. We found that teachers had documents in their class files, or that documents were filed in the juvenile’s master file instead of his/ her education file. At Swannanoa and Stonewall Jackson, we found the juvenile’s and/ or guidance counselor’s signatures and dates were missing on the form showing course of study selection by juveniles in the eighth grade and above. We should note that education staff at each Center were able to locate most issing documents identified in the review when made aware of the problem.
m
TABLE 10
Youth Development Center
Education Files Test Results
Test Results
Error
Dillon
Samarkand
Dobbs
Swannanoa
Jackson
Total
Sample Size
Error Percent
Missing personal education plan / scholastic development plan
19
16
12
21
2
70
148
47%
Scholastic development plan or PEP not signed or dated
0
0
0
4
8
12
78
15%
Required data not included in PEP/ scholastic development plan
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
0%
Missing hearing/ speech test or not centrally located
19
0
2
1
5
27
148
18%
Missing Test of Adult Basic Education
1
0
0
0
1
2
148
1%
Missing grades/ transcripts
1
0
0
0
0
1
148
1%
Did not screen public school records
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
0%
Missing GED documentation
0
0
0
1
0
1
73
1%
Total Errors
40
16
14
27
16
113
969
12%
Total Tested
187
184
193
184
221
% Error
21%
9%
7%
15%
7%
Source: Juvenile Education Records at each Youth Development Center
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP should require that the Youth Development Centers maintain a centralized education file for each juvenile containing all required education records and documentation. This file should remain with the juvenile if he/ she is transferred from one Center to another and should be forwarded to the Local Education Authority if the juvenile returns to public school.
DEALING WITH JUVENILE OFFENDERS REQUIRES TEACHERS WITH A UNIQUE SET OF SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE.
Teachers must meet State certification requirements prior to hiring. However, the special situations that the teachers in the Youth Development Centers have to face may require a much different skill set than that needed in a regular LEA. As noted earlier, 61% of the 38
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
juvenile offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs when admitted to the Centers. This means that each Center instructor must be able to deal with juveniles who are not functionally literate and who may possess any number of specific identified needs such as hearing / speech / language impaired, health impaired, educable mentally disabled, learning disabled, behaviorally / mentally disabled, or on psychotropic medication. ( See Exhibit 7, page 34.) Further, school directors and building principals stated that the quality of intervention for juveniles was directly linked to the quality of staff. They further expressed concern that the block schedule functioned much like a study hall unless the staff was conscientious and qualified.
RECOMMENDATION
The DJJDP Superintendent should work with the Department of Public Instruction to examine the qualifications and classification for Youth Development Center teachers to determine whether these instructors should be on a separate salary schedule. Further, the Superintendent should request feedback from the building principals who utilize the block schedule to determine the strengths and problems the schools are experiencing with the block schedule. That information should be used to support, modify, or abandon the block schedule.
THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY RATIONALE FOR THE ARRAY OF SPECIALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE CENTERS.
Table 11, page 40, shows the number and type of customized vocational programs offered at the Centers. However, we found no procedure in place for the Centers to request a specialized program. Nor did we find any evidence that the ongoing programs have identified the need for additional resources ( support staff, special equipment, etc.) to allow those programs to flourish. Evidence of involvement of local businesses and communities was also lacking. Assignment of the juvenile offenders to the various Centers based on distance from the offender’s home may not match the needs and abilities of the juvenile to the specialized programs at the Centers. Therefore, offenders may be put at an educational disadvantage depending on the Center to which they are assigned. Court Counselors do follow- up the juveniles when they are released17; however, this follow- up is not designed to assess the quality / applicability of the vocational training received while at the Youth Development Centers. Given these shortcomings, DJJDP may not be meeting its stated goal of providing the juveniles the needed skills to become productive citizens upon release. Statistics show the recidivism
17 There is a formalized system of follow- up called Post Release Supervision that is provided in the community by Court Counselors working in close collaboration with Center clinical staff ( social workers); this supervision can last for up to one year.
39
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
rate at the Centers to be 21% for calendar year 2002. A recent study18 commissioned by DJJDP on recidivism stated, “. . . post release efforts to rehabilitate juveniles in the early months may be the most important.”
TABLE 11
Vocational Education Courses
As of December 2002
Dillon
Dobbs
Samarkand
Jackson
Swannanoa
Automotive Technology
X
X
X
X
Computer Applications / Business Ed/ Keyboarding
X
X
X
X
X
VIP/ Career Exploration/ Pre- Vocational
X
X
X
X
Furniture and Cabinet Making / Construction Technology
X
X
X
Horticulture / Building Grounds Maintenance
X
X
X
Barbering
X
Computer Technology / Computer Engineering
X
Broadcast Technology
X
Commercial and Residential Cleaning
X
Food and Nutrition
X
Graphic Communications
X
Pottery
X
Junior ROTC
X
Total
4
9
1
5
8
Source: DJJDP
RECOMMENDATION
DJJDP management should develop and implement a process for the approval of customized programs at the Youth Development Centers. This process should not only justify the need for the program, but also identify all resources that will be needed on a continuing basis. Center staff should solicit more involvement of local businesses for identification of need and support of all specialized vocational programs. A formal system of follow- up for the released juveniles should be implemented that includes assistance in finding work in the vocation for which they received training. Lastly, DJJDP should develop a method of assessing the applicability of the training provided by the Centers. Modifications to the specialized programs should be made to keep them relevant and in vocational areas where the released juveniles will be able to find work.
18 Criminal Recidivism after Commitment for Juvenile Delinquency: Report on a Study of Persons Released from North Carolina Youth Development Centers in 1996, Stevens H. Clarke, Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 2001.
40
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTER INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT.
DJJDP’s per pupil expenditure ( PPE) is higher than the average PPE for all Local Education Authorities ( LEAs) in the State. ( See Table 12.) However, the Youth Development Center schools run twelve months a year, with 220 instructional days. Public schools have 180 instructional days contained in approximately 9 ½ months.
TABLE 12
Per Pupil Expenditure ( PPE) Ranking, 2000- 01
( Ranking based on 117 total school districts, highest = 1.)
Source of Funds
State
Federal
Local
Total
Selected LEAs
PPE
Rank
PPE
Rank
PPE
Rank
PPE
Rank
Mecklenburg Co.( Largest)
$ 4,398.40
101
$ 272.75
95
$ 2,340.85
5
$ 7,012.00
25
Hoke County ( Medium)
4,693.60
58
388.93
43
629.27
114
5,711.80
105
Hyde County ( Smallest)
8,954.80
1
986.12
4
1,426.06
25
11,366.98
1
Jones County
6,749.63
3
684.57
9
691.88
112
8,126.08
6
Wake County
4,311.47
106
260.83
98
1,905.30
11
6,477.60
57
Total State Avg.
4,526.52
330.27
1,427.46
6,284.25
DJJDP*
$ 7,890.93
647.70
0.00
$ 8,538.63
* Note: DJJDP schools run 12 months a year with 220 instructional days, public schools have 180 instructional days. Additionally, 30% of DJJDP juveniles quality for exceptional children programs, whereas statewide about 12% qualify.
Source: NCDPI web site and DJJDP
EXHIBIT 8 Youth Development Centers Education BudgetsFY2001- 02$ 0$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 600,000$ 800,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,800,000$ 2,000,000JacksonSamarkandDobbsSwannanoaDillionCentralOfficeTotal Budget$ 0$ 5,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ 25,000$ 30,000Per Pupil BudgetBudgetPPE
Additionally, 30% of DJJDP juveniles qualify for exceptional children programs, whereas statewide about 12% qualify for these funds. Examination of total budget data for each of the Center schools shows that the allocation of those budgets may not be equitable, as shown in Exhibit 8. Because teacher salaries are based on years of experience, longevity with the State, and type of degree held, personnel costs contribute to the unequal distribution of total budgets to the schools. DJJDP’s 41
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Education Superintendent does allocate other expenses to the schools on a per student basis.
Despite this, inequities were evident in the areas of administration, staff, instructional supplies, and capital outlay. Each Youth Development Center has a different configuration of administrative, instructional, and support staff. All had a principal and assistant principal, with the exception of Samarkand that has a lead teacher who performs the principal duties. ( See staffing discussion on page 61.) Items such as library materials, desks, chairs, tables, lab supplies, and copy machines were generally in poor condition. Additionally, there is no stable source of funding for computer equipment and internet connections. Lastly, the educational facilities themselves were in very poor physical condition. We noted deteriorating gymnasiums, the necessity of using multiple buildings for the school, and classrooms in need of extensive repair. ( See page 21 for discussion of building conditions.)
A major factor affecting the adequacy and equity of funding could be that the education administrators at DJJDP, from the Education Director ( Superintendent) to the Center school principals, do not partici
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention |
| Contributor |
North Carolina. Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. North Carolina. Department of State Auditor. |
| Date | 2003 |
| Subjects |
Children--North Carolina Juvenile detention homes--North Carolina--Evaluation Juvenile detention--North Carolina--Evaluation Juvenile delinquency--Services for--North Carolina--Evaluation Juvenile justice, Administration of--North Carolina--Evaluation |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Title from title screen (viewed on July 9, 2008).; "May 2003." |
| Abstract | This report consists of an executive summary and findings and recommendations that contain program overview information. The objectives of the audit were to: 1) examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of possible abuse and neglect at the Youth Development Centers, 2) determine the effectiveness of the training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs, 3) determine the current staffing levels at the Central Office and the Centers and the type and quality of training provided for staff, and 4) examine the Department's use of technology for management of juvenile information and reporting purposes and other management control procedures. |
| Publisher | Office of State Auditor |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Office of the State Auditor |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Audits |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 6 MB; 161 p. |
| Digital Collection |
North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Related Items | http://worldcat.org/oclc/234237188/viewonline |
| Audience | All |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_performanceaudityouth052003.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
| Full Text | PERFORMANCE AUDIT of the YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS AND JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS Within the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR RALPH CAMPBELL, JR. STATE AUDITOR MAY 2003 Ralph Campbell, Jr. State Auditor STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the State Auditor 2 S. Salisbury Street 20601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699- 0601 Telephone: ( 919) 807- 7500 Fax: ( 919) 807- 7647 Internet http:// www. osa. state. nc. us May 7, 2003 The Honorable Michael F. Easley, Governor Secretary George L. Sweat Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Members of the North Carolina General Assembly Ladies and Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit this performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This report consists of an executive summary and findings and recommendations that contain program overview information. The objectives of the audit were to: 1) examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of possible abuse and neglect at the Youth Development Centers, 2) determine the effectiveness of the training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs, 3) determine the current staffing levels at the Central Office and the Centers and the type and quality of training provided for staff, and 4) examine the Department’s use of technology for management of juvenile information and reporting purposes and other management control procedures. Secretary Sweat has reviewed a draft copy of this report. His written comments are included as Appendix G, page 129. We wish to express our appreciation to Secretary Sweat, his staff, and the Directors and staff at each Youth Development and Detention Center for the courtesy, cooperation, and assistance provided us during this effort. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Campbell, Jr. State Auditor TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ .. 1 JUVENILE JUSTICE DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 5 AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 7 PROGRAM OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... .... 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 15 Objective 1: Safety and Security..................................................................................................... 16 Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 16 Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 20 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 20 Security Issues......................................................................................................................... 21 Safety Issues......................................................................................................................... ... 28 Objective 2: Training, Education, Treatment.................................................................................. 34 Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 34 Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 35 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 35 Juvenile Training and Education Issues.................................................................................. 36 Juvenile Treatment and Rehabilitation Issues.......................................................................... 44 Pictures of Youth Development And Detention Centers.......................................................................... 53- 58 Objective 3: Staffing and Training.................................................................................................. 59 Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 59 Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 59 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 60 Staffing Issues......................................................................................................................... 61 Training Issues......................................................................................................................... 72 Objective 4: Management Systems.................................................................................................. 76 Overview....................................................................................................................... .......... 76 Methodology.................................................................................................................... ....... 79 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ......... 79 Internal Controls Issues........................................................................................................... 80 Technology Issues.................................................................................................................... 82 TABLES: 1 DJJDP’s Authorized Budget Data: FY1998- 99 through FY2002- 03.............................................. 13 2 Reasons for Detention..................................................................................................................... 16 3 Use of Security Technology at Youth Development Centers.......................................................... 22 4 Number of Escapes and Attempted Escapes: Youth Development Centers: FY1998- 99 – 2002- 03..................................................................................................................... 23 5 Summary of Facility Condition Assessment Program Reports on Youth Development Centers: 2000........................................................................................... 27 6 Summary of Youth Development and Detention Centers’ Workers’ Compensation Claims: 2000 - 2002....................................................................................................................... 28 7 Detention Centers’ Average Juvenile Population: FY1998- 99 – 2002- 03..................................... 31 8 Results of Abuse and Neglect Reporting Documentation Review.................................................. 32 9 Percent of GED Graduates based on Average Daily Population: FY1998- 99 – 2002- 03..................................................................................................................... 37 10 Education Files Test Results........................................................................................................... 38 11 Vocational Education Courses as of December 2002..................................................................... 40 12 Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking: FY2001- 02.................................................................................. 41 13 Comparison of Central Office Education Staff............................................................................... 43 14 Vacant Positions by Locations: July 1998 – December 2002........................................................ 61 15 Vacant Positions by Category: December 2002............................................................................. 61 16 Changes in Positions by Location: July 1998 – December 2002................................................... 62 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLES ( CONTINUED): 17 DJJDP Institutional Services Employee Turnover Rates: July 1999 – December 2002................ 64 18 Turnover Rate for Employees Working Directly With Juveniles: December 2002....................... 64 19 DJJDP Detention Centers Staffing: December 2002....................................................................... 65 20 Education Staff and Average Daily Population: December 2002.................................................. 66 21 DPI Pupil – Teacher Ratio Standards.............................................................................................. 67 22 Comparison of Other States’ Juvenile to Direct Care Ratios.......................................................... 69 23 Span of Control for Direct Care Staff............................................................................................. 70 24 Court Counselor Caseloads: December 2002................................................................................. 71 25 Other States’ Supervision Caseloads............................................................................................... 71 26 Summary of DJJDP Staff Training Policies.................................................................................... 72 27 Results of Youth Development and Detention Centers’ Employees’ Training Review.................. 74 28 J- NET Funding Sources and Amounts............................................................................................ 77 29 DJJDP NC- JOIN Project Needs Included in Expansion Budget..................................................... 78 30 NC- JOIN Budget and Funding Sources.......................................................................................... 84 EXHIBITS: 1 DJJDP’s Organizational Chart as of November 2002..................................................................... 12 2 Breakdown of DJJDP Expenditures................................................................................................ 13 3 Simplified Overview of the Juvenile Justice Process...................................................................... 18 4 Youth Development System Locations and Bed Capacity.............................................................. 19 5 Admissions by Offense................................................................................................................... 24 6 Example of Youth Development Center Cottage Layout................................................................ 29 7 Therapeutic and Education Needs of Juveniles in Youth Development Centers: FY00- 01............ 34 8 Youth Development Centers’ Education Budgets........................................................................... 41 9 Total Annual Cost Per Bed: FY1998- 99 – 2001- 02....................................................................... 50 10 Youth Development and Detention Centers Expenditures: FY1998- 99 – 2001- 02....................... 59 11 DJJDP Field Staff Levels................................................................................................................ 63 12 DJJDP Juvenile to Staff Ratios: December 2002........................................................................... 68 APPENDICES: A Number of Admissions by County.................................................................................................. 89 B Youth Development Center Site Visit Findings / Observations by Center..................................... 91 C. A. Dillon......................................................................................................................... ..... 91 Dobbs.......................................................................................................................... ............ 95 Samarkand...................................................................................................................... ...... 100 Stonewall Jackson.................................................................................................................. 105 Swannanoa...................................................................................................................... ...... 110 C Summary of MGT Staffing Study................................................................................................. 115 D Summary Results of Court Counselor Survey............................................................................... 117 E Original Budget for J- NET Grant.................................................................................................. 123 F DJJDP Accomplishments.............................................................................................................. 125 G Response from Secretary, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention............. 129 DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT REPORT.................................................................................................. 153 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Description Established in 2000, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) is responsible for fighting juvenile crime and helping young people avoid delinquency. A major part of the Department’s mission is to coordinate juvenile justice strategies in North Carolina by overseeing the State’s juvenile court offices, development and detention centers. North Carolina’s juvenile courts have original jurisdiction over anyone charged with a crime who was under the age of 18 ( up to age 21 in certain situations) at the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court. Juveniles awaiting a court appearance or ordered held for brief periods generally are sent to one of 14 Detention Centers. Ten of those Centers are operated by the State and four by counties, with a total of 322 beds. Once a juvenile has been judged delinquent by a court, he is assigned to one of the five Youth Development Centers operated by the Department’s Youth Development Division. There are 705 Youth Development Center beds in those five centers. Audit Scope and Methodology This performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was undertaken at the request of the Buncombe County legislative delegation. The scope of the audit encompassed the entire Department with an emphasis on the five Youth Development Centers and the 14 Detention Centers located across the State. Conclusions in Brief Objective 1: Safety and Security The Youth Development Centers are housed in facilities that are, for the most part, over 60 years old. Half of the Detention Centers are 30- 40 years old. Most Centers are in poor physical condition, and the age and construction of the Centers increases the security risks. Two of the five Youth Development Centers do not have security fences, and the use of electronic security measures is virtually non- existent. The Centers’ campus- style layouts further increase security risks by requiring offenders to be moved from secured housing units to less secure buildings for meals, classes, or other reasons. Abandoned buildings obscure lines of sight allowing opportunities for escapes. Poor building layouts and high juvenile- to- staff ratios lessens the safety for both offenders and staff. Some Detention Centers are overcrowded, which can increase the stress on both offenders and staff. Due to inconsistent policies and procedures, staff is confused over what, when, and to whom to report suspected incidents of abuse and neglect. Estimated repair and renovation costs for the existing Centers is about $ 44 million. The Department estimates construction of three new Youth Development Center facilities to replace the existing ones to be $ 90 million. Objective 2: Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation The Youth Development Center schools, classified as alternative schools by the State, use the North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study even though the requirements are not applicable to a substantial number of juvenile offenders. Approximately 61% of offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs when committed to the Centers, with about 60% of them not functionally literate according to Center teachers. On average, only 13.2% of the offenders complete a GED while at the Centers. Further, vocational programs varied at the Centers, community leaders had little input into the vocational education courses offered, and there was no systematic follow- up to assess vocational training or to assist juveniles in obtaining jobs in areas where they had received training. Youth Development Center instructional budgets were not sufficient, did not include any funding from local education authorities, and did not have any input from education staff at the Centers. There is a lack of clarity about the importance and role of clinical treatment and rehabilitation in the system. Programs are disorganized, lack resources, and may not be allocated enough time. However, the Assessment and Treatment Center approach offers significant improvement. While several model programs are on- going within the system, major shortcomings noted included need for more group treatment, family treatment, and increased one- to- one therapy. Provision of these services would better justify the State’s $ 55,029 annual investment in each juvenile offender. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective 3: Staffing and Training Sixty- two percent of the Department’s staff ( 1,233 of 1,994) work in the Youth Development Division. Sixty- one percent of the vacant positions were at the Youth Development and Detention Centers, with vacancies remaining open for over a year on average. While there has been extensive job shifting since the creation of the Department, only 12 field positions have been transferred to the Central Office. However, the Centers have suffered a net loss of 211 positions, mostly due to cuts caused by the State’s budget situation. Turnover rates for the Centers have been high, averaging almost 20% annually, with turnover rates for some positions as high as 55% ( cottage parent). That has resulted in uneven staff distribution for the Centers. DJJDP has not established target ratios for the different types of staff at the Centers to help balance staffing. Training polices were inconsistent and appeared to be inadequate for certain types of employees. The Centers have not consistently provided the required orientation and in- service training for employees, and some of the training provided was not timely. Some Center personnel working directly with juvenile offenders, for instance, did not receive basic training for seven to eight months after they were hired. Most delays in training were related to staff and budget shortages. Objective 4: Management Systems DJJDP management has faced a number of obstacles in forming a single, cohesive entity from two separate divisions in different agencies. Management has been updating the ten- year- old Administrative Code brought over from DHHS and AOC with the respective divisions. This process is almost complete, but the lack of formal policies and procedures hampers effective operations in the Centers since there is a mixture of old and new policies and procedures. Changing from a correctional to a therapeutic model has led to some communication problems, with educational or treatment experts in the Central Office communicating directly with specialists at the Centers. This situation has at times left the Center Directors, who have overall responsibility for Center operations, out of the information loop and caused communication problems between the field staff and the Central Office. A second major obstacle faced by agency management has been the absence of readily available data on the juvenile population. Prior to 1999 and the formation of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there was no centralized, automated information system for juvenile offender data. The Department has been working on a statewide database to manage and track juvenile offenders. As of January 2003, it has spent $ 9.8 million in federal and State funds to develop and implement the project. A major concern for the NC- JOIN ( North Carolina Juvenile Online Information Network) project is a stable source of funding to complete this project. The agency estimates that $ 3.9 million is needed to complete the design and implementation statewide by the target date of June 2007. An additional $ 9.3 million is needed to maintain the technical infrastructure Specific Findings Page Objective 1: Safety and Security Safety Issues: All Youth Development Centers do not have site security and access control measures................... 21 Security risks are increased by the Centers’ campus style layouts..................................................... 23 The age and construction of Center buildings increases the security risks.............................................. 24 The Youth Development and Detention Centers buildings are in poor condition................................ 26 Security Issues: Building layout and staffing ratios contribute to unsafe conditions............................................................. 28 Some state operated juvenile Detention Centers are overcrowded........................................................... 30 DJJDP’s reporting system for possible abuse incidents is not consistent or effectively documented.. 31 Objective 2: Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation Juvenile Training and Education Issues: The North Carolina standard Course of Study is not compatible with the needs of the juvenile offenders...................................................................................................................... ........................ 36 Youth Development Centers’ education files for individual juveniles were incomplete..................................................................................................................... ............. 38 Dealing with juvenile offenders requires teachers with a unique set of skills and experience............. 38 There does not appear to be any rationale for the array of specialized education programs at the Centers........................................................................................................................ ........................ 39 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page Youth Development Center instructional budgets are not sufficient.................................................... 41 DJJDP’s educational staff face unique challenges in providing quality education............................... 42 There is limited community involvement in Center education programs.............................................. 43 Juvenile Treatment and Rehabilitation Issues: There is a general lack of clarity about the importance and role of clinical treatment and rehabilitation in the system......................................................................................................................... ............... 44 Treatment programs at most of the centers are disorganized and lack resources.............................. 45 Staff is confused on how to transition from a correctional to an individual needs clinical philosophy. 46 There are several current attempts to build model programs within the system.................................. 47 Centers are inconsistent in their ability to maintain active group treatment programs. ...................... 48 Staff to juvenile ratio in most Centers does not appear to allow for the provision of intensive one to one contact with licensed professionals............................................................................................... 49 Centers don’t have the resources to offer needed family treatment options. ...................................... 50 The Assessment and Treatment Planning Center approach represents a significant potential improvement to the clinical system....................................................................................................... 51 Objective 3: Staffing and Training Staffing Issues: Vacant positions negatively affect Youth Development and Detention Centers operations. .............. 61 DJJDP field staff has been reduced since the creation of the department.......................................... 62 Turnover rates for specific positions at DJJDP are high...................................................................... 63 Both Youth Development and Detention Centers suffer from inequitable staff distribution................. 65 Youth Development and Detention Centers are under- staffed in direct care positions....................... 66 DJJDP has not established formal juvenile to direct care staff and teacher ratios.............................. 67 Span of control may be too large for some direct care supervisors at Youth Development and Detention Centers........................................................................................................................ ........ 70 There are no caseload standards for Court Counselors...................................................................... 71 Training Issues: Training policies are not consistent and may be inadequate for certain types of employees. 72 Youth Development and Detention Centers have not consistently provided the required orientation and in- service training....................................................................................................................... .. 73 Objective 4: Management Controls Internal Control Issues: The lack of formal policies and procedures hampers effective operations in the Centers................... 80 Communication and information flow between the Central Office and the Youth Development Centers is not consistently effective................................................................................................................... 81 Technology Issues: Lessons learned from J- NET can benefit NC- JOIN development........................................................ 82 DJJDP may not have the resources to adequately complete development of NC- JOIN..................... 84 3 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF " Youth Development Centers and Juvenile Detention Centers within the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention” Issued May 2003 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: 4 The Centers’ age and campus layout create security risks. Youth Development Centers should be replaced. Modify curriculum to address offender needs; restructure treatment options. 1. Safety and Security Offender education and treatment practices need to be updated and enhanced. 2. Juvenile Education/ Treatment MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 2 Revise safety/ security policies Address immediate need safety/ security shortcomings Increase use of technology/ electronic security measures Re- examine use of buildings andstudent movement Modify most problematic physicallayouts Examine need for more DetentionCenters Train employees on suspectedabuse reporting requirements Consider paying instructors ondifferent pay scale Set up process for approval ofeducation / training courses Evaluate educational budgetprocedures Articulate clinical philosophy; tie inall Center activities Establish clear procedures fortransition from correctional model Consider alternative treatmentoptions Fully develop Assessment Centers Vacancies and untimely training negatively affect Center operations. 3. Staffing and Training 3 Devise strategy to fill positions sooner; provide timely training. Determine adequate staffing levelsat Centers Establish juvenile to staff ratios forall positions Consider position study forupgrades, especially high turn- overpositions Provide basic and job- specifictraining to all staff Provide required training timely 4 Identify stable funding source for NC- JOIN; finalize policies. Mixed policies and inaccessible offender data hamper operations. 4. Management Controls Focus on replacing outdated facilities. AGENCY RESPONSE: Give operational policies/ procedureshigh priority; train staff Define matrix organizationalstructure; lines of authority, responsibility Continue emphasis on development/ implementation of NC- JOIN Request priority for funding fromGeneral Assembly Identify alternative funding sources Finalizing policies; seeking NC- JOIN funding. Looking at curriculum as allowed; addressing treatment options. Working with OSP; revising training strategies. JUVENILE JUSTICE DEFINITIONS NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION Definitions of words and phrases that are used throughout this report, as well as terms and program titles that are unique to NC DJJDP are listed below to aid the reader and to serve as a reference source. Adjudication: The court process whereby a juvenile is found to be delinquent, undisciplined, dependent, neglected, or abused. Alternatives to Detention Services ( ATD): Services provided by a court counselor by court order as an alternative to secure detention. The services reduce the number of days a juvenile remains in secure custody by providing close, daily supervision in the home in lieu of secure detention. Assessment and Treatment Planning Center: A secure facility where, during the first 30 days of commitment to the Department, juveniles are screened, assessed, and evaluated regarding their clinical, rehabilitative, and educational needs, and plans are developed to address these needs. Camp Woodson: A therapeutic adventure- based camping program, implemented through Youth Development, which operates in wilderness areas throughout the state. In the program, juveniles live outdoors, participate in individual and group counseling, learn personal responsibility, develop a respect for an understanding of the natural world, develop plans for successful re- entry into their communities, and take part in activities that build trust, self- esteem, and cooperation. Center for the Prevention of School Violence ( CPSV): A resource center and “ think tank” promoting safe schools and positive youth development. DJJDP’s primary resource for dealing with the problem of school violence with the focus on ensuring that schools are safe and secure so that every juvenile is able to attend a school that is safe and secure, free of fear and conducive to learning. Chief court counselor: The person responsible for administration and supervision of juvenile intake, probation, and post- release supervision in each judicial district, operating under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Community- based program: A program providing nonresidential or residential treatment to a juvenile under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in the community where the juvenile��s family lives. A community- based program may include specialized foster care, family counseling, shelter care, and other appropriate treatment. Complaint: A written allegation that a juvenile is delinquent or undisciplined with a signature verifying that the allegation is true. A complaint initiates the intake process. Court counselor: An employee of DJJDP who provides intake, probation, protective supervision, post- release supervision and/ or other services under the direction of the chief court counselor. Delinquent juvenile: Any juvenile who, while less than 16 years of age but at least 6 years of age, commits a crime or infraction under state law or under an ordinance of local government, including violation of motor vehicle laws. Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP): The state’s juvenile justice agency responsible for a broad range of programs designed to reduce crime and delinquency and protect the general public. It has responsibility for state- operated youth development centers and juvenile Detention Centers as well as those programs funded by the Department but operated by other service providers. Facilities and program areas include 5 youth development centers, 14 juvenile Detention Centers, 2 state- operated wilderness camps, 7 Eckerd Wilderness Camps, 59 Governor’s One- on- One Volunteer programs, 6 Multipurpose Group Homes, 100 SOS Programs, 556 JCPC funded programs, and juvenile court counselor services in 100 counties. Detention: The secure confinement of a juvenile pursuant to a court order. Detention Centers: A facility approved to provide secure confinement and care for juveniles. Detention facilities include state and locally administered detention homes and centers. Disposition: The treatment plan ordered by the court for the juvenile after the case has been adjudicated. District: Boundaries for DJJDP court services operations administered by chief court counselors. The 39 DJJDP districts generally coincide with District Court Districts as set out in NC General Statute 7A- 133. Diversion plan/ contract: An agreement at intake between the juvenile, the juvenile’s parent, guardian or custodian, and the court counselor where the complaint against the juvenile is diverted from court and the juvenile agrees to certain expectations and/ or is referred to a resource for services. Eckerd Camps: A year- round wilderness camping residential treatment program, implemented through Youth Development, for youth whose behavior has led to their removal from family, school, and community. Counselor- teachers live with the youth and through programming and experiential learning promote self- esteem, personal responsibility, communication skills, and self- discipline. Faith- based initiative: A new DJJDP initiative that is designed to offer delinquent juveniles the opportunity to explore their own spiritual growth and to invite the faith community to engage with these juveniles and their families to create conditions that support their positive growth and development. Governor’s One- on- One program: A mentor program, implemented through Intervention and Prevention, that utilizes adult volunteers to build relationships with and help redirect troubled youth. Mentors assist youth by tutoring, assisting with skill building, participating in recreational activities and workshops, and providing transportation to medical and other appointments. H. E. A. R. T.: Holistic Enrichment At- Risk Teens. A holistic gender- specific substance abuse residential treatment and education program for adjudicated females. House arrest: A requirement that the juvenile remain at the juvenile’s residence unless the court or the juvenile court counselor authorizes the juvenile to leave for specific purposes. 5 JUVENILE JUSTICE DEFINITIONS Intake counselor: A person who screens and evaluates a complaint alleging that a juvenile is delinquent or undisciplined to determine whether the complaint should be filed as a petition. Intensive supervision: A level of supervision services provided by a court counselor for a juvenile under the jurisdiction of the court including intensive probation. Intensive supervision requires an increase in the number of contacts with the juvenile and parent( s). Juvenile Crime Prevention Council ( JCPC): The local body that works in partnership with the state to develop community- based alternatives to youth development centers to provide community- based delinquency and substance abuse alternatives that will protect the community and juveniles. Needs assessment: A systematic assessment of service and treatment needs of a juvenile and family. Factors related to each juvenile and his/ her family are scored and totaled to determine the appropriate needs level. At least three priority needs are identified and should be addressed in a court disposition and/ or a service plan to determine appropriate service interventions. Risk and needs assessments are used together to help determine the amount of supervision as well as services, interventions, and treatments a juvenile may need. Petition: The document filed with the court to initiate a juvenile court proceeding. Post- release supervision: The supervision of a juvenile who has been returned to the community after having been committed to the DJJDP for placement in a youth development center. Probation: The status of a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent, is subject to specified conditions under the supervision of a court counselor, and may be returned to the court for violation of those conditions during the period of probation. Protective supervision: The status of a juvenile who has been adjudicated undisciplined and is under the supervision of a court counselor. Risk assessment: A statistical procedure for estimating the probability that a juvenile will commit future delinquent offenses. Factors related to the juvenile’s age, number of referrals to intake, most serious prior adjudication( s), prior assaults, runaway history, substance use, school behavior, peer relationships, and parental supervision are scored and totaled to determine a risk level. Risk level, current offense, and delinquency history are considered by the court counselor in making a recommendation and by judges in determining a disposition level. School violence: Any behavior that violates a school’s educational mission or climate of respect or jeopardizes the intent of the school to be free of aggression against persons or property, drugs, weapons, disruptions, and disorder ( as defined by the Center for the Prevention of School Violence and recognized by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service). Secure custody: Physical placement of a juvenile in an approved detention facility, pursuant to a court order. Sexual offender treatment: For JCPCs: Any community- based program that is sex offender specific and excludes other types of mental health services, has an assessment component, is practiced primarily in groups, is confrontive, and generally legally mandated, has a family group component and has designated follow- up procedures. For DJJDP Facilities: A program that specifically addresses an individual’s sexual offending behaviors, has an assessment component, is practiced primarily in groups, is confrontive, and results in the development of a Relapse Prevention Plan. Status offender: An undisciplined juvenile. Support Our Juveniles ( SOS) program: A program, implemented through Intervention and Prevention, in which community volunteers are paired with middle school juveniles to help juveniles improve academic performance and self- esteem. Volunteers collaborate with teachers, guidance counselors, and parents to promote a meaningful learning environment. Temporary custody: The physical taking and holding of a juvenile under personal supervision, before a petition is filed and without a court order. Undisciplined juvenile: a) A juvenile who, while less than 16 years of age but at least 6 years of age, is unlawfully absent from school; or is regularly disobedient to and beyond the disciplinary control of the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian; or is regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be; or has run away from home for a period of more than 24 hours; or b) A juvenile who is 16 or 17 years of age and who is regularly disobedient to and beyond the disciplinary control of the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian; or is regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be; or has run away from home for a period of more than 24 hours. Wilderness program: A rehabilitative residential treatment program in a rural or outdoor setting. Youth Development Center ( YDC): A secure residential facility authorized to provide long- term treatment, education, and rehabilitative services for delinquent juveniles committed by the court to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Source: DJJDP’s web page 6 AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY North Carolina General Statute 147- 64.6 empowers the State Auditor with authority to conduct performance audits of any State agency or program. Performance audits are reviews of activities and operations to determine whether resources are being used economically, efficiently, and effectively. This performance audit of the Youth Development Centers and the Juvenile Detention Centers within the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) was undertaken at the request of the Buncombe County legislative delegation. The request was an outgrowth of allegations of mismanagement and abuse, coupled with media reports of problems at the Swannanoa Youth Development Center. Preliminary discussions identified what appeared to be systemic concerns. Therefore, the scope of the audit encompassed the entire Department with an emphasis on the five Youth Development Centers and the ten State- operated and four local county- operated Detention Centers located across the State. Since many of the issues identified required the assistance of subject matter specialists, the State Auditor supplemented his staff with experts in the areas of education, training, and treatment of juvenile offenders, as well as facility security experts. The audit sought to answer a number of questions relative to the operation of Youth Development and Juvenile Detention Centers within the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Questions included: How secure are the current Youth Development Centers, and how safe are the juveniles at these Centers? What improvements / renovations would be needed at the Centers to improve the safety and security of both the juveniles and the staff? How effective are the education, training, treatment, and rehabilitation programs at the Centers? What is the rate of employee turnover at the Centers, and are they adequately staffed? Have positions been transferred from the Centers and other field operations to the DJJDP Central Office? Does DJJDP have the necessary resources to effectively and efficiently administer the programs under its purview? Is DJJDP effectively utilizing technology options to manage the juvenile population, provide needed data, and fulfill its mission? These questions lead to the development of the following objectives: Objective 1 - Safety and Security: To examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of abuse at the Youth Development Centers. Objective 2 – Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation: To determine the effectiveness of training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs. Objective 3 – Staffing and Training: To determine the current staffing levels at the Central Office, Youth Development Centers, and Detention Centers; and type and quality of training provided for staff. 7 AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY Objective 4 – Management Systems: To examine DJJDP’s use of technology for management of juvenile information and reporting purposes and other management control procedures. During the period October 2002 through February 2003, we conducted the fieldwork for this performance audit. To achieve the audit objectives, we employed various auditing techniques that adhere to the generally accepted auditing standards as promulgated in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. These techniques included: • Review of existing General Statutes and the North Carolina Administrative Code as they related to DJJDP. • Analysis of policies and procedures at the DJJDP Central Office and at each Youth Development Center and Detention Centers visited. • Interviews with DJJDP Central Office staff, as well as interviews with staff at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrative Office of the Courts. • Review of internal and external reports on DJJDP and the handling of juvenile offenders. • Examination of organizational charts and job descriptions for DJJDP. • Compilation and analysis of funding and expenditure data for DJJDP as a whole and the Youth Development and Detention Centers specifically. • Survey of district Court Counselors. • Analysis of incident reports at the Youth Development Centers, as well as workers’ compensation claims for staff at the Centers. • Site visits and staff interviews at all five Youth Development Centers and six Detentions Centers to determine areas of concern, staffing levels, and level and kind of DJJDP oversight. • Review of clinical and educational records and program documentation at each Youth Development Center. • Examination of safety and security issues at each Youth Development Center and review of capital improvement plans and reports. • Interviews with numerous persons outside DJJDP who are or have been involved with the program or with the creation of DJJDP. • Interviews with former offenders, parents and advocacy groups. • Compilation of data on other states’ juvenile offender programs. This report contains the results of the audit as well as specific recommendations aimed at improving the operations of DJJDP in terms of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Because of the test nature and other inherent limitations of an audit, together with the limitations of any system of internal and management controls, this audit would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system or lack of compliance. Also, projection of any of the results contained in this report to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate due to changes in conditions and/ or personnel, or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. 8 PROGRAM OVERVIEW PROGRAM OVERVIEW: The North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) was created by the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act ( Article 3C in General Statutes Chapter 147). Legislation merged the Division of Youth Services within the Department of Health and Human Services and the Juvenile Services Division within the Administrative Office of the Courts. These two divisions created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which was initially located in the Governor’s Office. In 2000, the Office of Juvenile Justice was elevated to cabinet- level status. The mission of DJJDP is to promote public safety and juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment through the operation of a seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system. The goals of DJJDP are: To promote public safety as the cornerstone of North Carolina’s juvenile justice system; To promote juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment at the State and community levels so that juvenile crime and delinquency are reduced; To establish and maintain a seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system. Currently, DJJDP is organized into four major divisions to accomplish its goals: Administration and Operations, Intervention / Prevention, Youth Development, and Center for the Prevention of School Violence. ( See Exhibit 1, page 12.) The major functions of each division are discussed below. Administration and Operations: The Administration Division oversees the legislative efforts of DJJDP, develops DJJDP's legislative agenda, coordinates legislative reports, responds to legislative inquiries, and represents DJJDP at the General Assembly and committee hearings. Additionally, this Division oversees the communications, policy, internal audit, safety, and chaplaincy initiatives of DJJDP. The Operations Division is the support arm of DJJDP, providing a qualified workforce, accounting for all fiscal activities, maximizing internal resources, and directing funds in conjunction with departmental mission and goals. Intervention / Prevention: The Intervention/ Prevention Division provides intake, probation, and post release supervision services for delinquent and undisciplined juveniles statewide. In addition, this Division provides technical and financial support for local juvenile justice programs through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils ( JCPCs) in each county. The Division also assists counties that are unable to address all of their specific identified needs within their allotment of JCPC funding by developing or coordinating efforts to target areas of unmet needs. DJJDP partners with Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils in each county to galvanize community leaders, locally and statewide, to reduce and prevent juvenile crime. JCPC board members, appointed by the county Board of Commissioners, meet monthly in each county. DJJDP allocates approximately $ 23 million to these councils annually to 9 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 10 PROGRAM OVERVIEW subsidize local programs and services. The JCPCs work to fund these types of services and programs in their local communities: • Counseling • Home- based family services • Treatment centers • Psychological services • Residential group homes • Restitution • Specialized foster care • Shelter care • Guided growth programs Court Counseling Services are provided through district court counselor offices, with staff serving juveniles in each county. The Chief Court Counselor supervises court counselor staff and is responsible to a DJJDP Area Administrator. Court Counselors are responsible for: • Intake-- receiving and evaluating delinquent and undisciplined complaints that law enforcement or citizens refer for possible court action. • Evaluation-- Counselors interview the complainant and/ or the victim, the juvenile and the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian, and persons who are known to have relevant information about the juvenile or the juvenile's family to make a decision whether to approve the complaint for court action or to handle the complaint without court action. • Reporting-- to the court regarding juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent to assist the court in making the most appropriate disposition for a juvenile. • Monitoring-- court orders that a judge may make regarding undisciplined or delinquent youth. • Working-- with undisciplined juveniles who are placed under protective supervision and with delinquent juveniles who are placed on probation. Juveniles who are determined by the court to have committed serious delinquent offenses and who have a high delinquency history are committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for placement in a youth development center. More specialized services such as Alternative to Detention Counselors and the Transportation programs augment the primary work of court counselors. Alternative to Detention Counselors provide daily contact, supervision, and monitoring of an extremely small caseload of individuals who would otherwise need to be in secure detention. Transportation Officers provide for the secure transfer of individuals between court, detention, and Youth Development Centers. The Support Our Juveniles ( SOS) Program is a community based after- school initiative that provides support and guidance to young people by involving them in constructive activities to keep them focused and out of trouble. The SOS Program provides after- school activities for school- aged children through grants to neighborhood and community- based organizations. These programs provide the delivery of services by public and non- public agencies to these children. 10 PROGRAM OVERVIEW There are also a number of other specialty programs under the Intervention / Prevention area. The North Carolina Eckerd Wilderness Camps serve boys and girls, ages 10 through 17, with behavioral problems. The camps are year- round, staff- secure, residential therapeutic programs, providing an alternative to more restrictive programs. The Multipurpose Juvenile Home Program is designed to provide secure non- institutional alternatives to secure Detention and Youth Development Centers through contracts with private providers. The Governor's One on One Program provides technical assistance, training, monitoring, and funding for local program coordinators who recruit, screen, and match adult volunteers who agree to spend at least four hours a week for one year in a one to one relationship with a troubled young person. Youth Development: The Youth Development Division of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is responsible for the operation of the five Youth Development Centers, Camp Woodson, ten Juvenile Detention Centers ( and contracts with four other county- operated Detention Centers), and the Juvenile Transportation Units. This Division has over 1,200 employees with an annual budget of over $ 55,000,000 and is responsible for the day- to- day operation and management of the 705 juvenile Youth Development Center beds and the 322 Detention Center beds ( 214 state- operated and 108 local county- operated). Center for the Prevention of School Violence: The Center for the Prevention of School Violence serves as a resource center and “ think tank” offering knowledge and expertise in the areas of prevention and positive youth development with the intent of assisting efforts that are directed at guiding all of North Carolina’s youth toward becoming productive members of their schools and communities. 11 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 12 EXHIBIT 1 Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) Organizational Chart as of November 2002 Source: DJJDP PROGRAM OVERVIEW 13 DJJDP’s total authorized budget for fiscal year 2002- 03 shows revenue and appropriations of $ 141,156,237. Total revenues and expenditures for DJJDP for fiscal years 1998- 99 through 2001- 02 are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Authorized Budget Data FY98- 99 FY99- 00 FY00- 01 FY01- 02 FY02- 03 Revenues Grants $ 4,521,897 $ 6,111,629 $ 6,964,850 $ 7,135,428 $ 8,116,034 Sales, Services, & Rental 17,252 22,792 22,638 20,183 24,400 Fees, Licenses, and Fines 18,996 7,900 0 0 0 Contributions & Donations 0 0 125 0 0 Miscellaneous 29,828 1,558 1,516 36 101,788 Intra Governmental Transactions 7,003,108 11,660,149 8,190,946 5,787,444 3,664,648 Total Revenues $ 11,591,082 $ 17,804,029 $ 15,180,075 $ 12,943,091 $ 11,906,870 Appropriations 123,122,583 133,753,830 137,823,047 130,873,276 129,249,367 Total Revenues and Appropriations $ 134,713,664 $ 151,557,859 $ 153,003,122 $ 143,816,367 $ 141,156,237 Expenditures By Cost Centers C. O. - Administration & Support $ 3,679,994 $ 5,270,814 $ 5,640,221 $ 5,296,936 Training Schools 44,689,796 45,341,097 47,071,518 43,245,247 Community Based Alternatives 22,438,121 17,965,892 20,854,353 20,692,045 JCPC Program 17,610,943 27,511,075 23,724,936 22,765,107 Court Services 23,663,591 28,698,897 29,821,400 27,659,161 Fiscal year end data not available at audit release date Detention Services 15,222,017 15,553,761 16,995,044 15,211,145 SOS 6,948,747 7,097,190 8,366,037 8,537,844 Other 460,455 4,119,132 529,613 408,882 Total Expenditures $ 134,713,664 $ 151,557,859 $ 153,003,122 $ 143,816,367 Source: North Carolina Accounting System, DJJDP records The focus of this performance audit was the operations of the five Youth Development Centers ( formerly called Training Schools) and the 14 Detention Centers under DJJDP. As shown in Exhibit 2, the Youth Development Centers account for 30.1% of total expenditures, while the Detention Centers account for another 10.6%. EXHIBIT 2Breakdown of DJJDP ExpendituresFY2001- 02Training Schools30.1% C. O. - Administration & Support3.7% Other0.3% SOS5.9% Detention Services10.6% Court Services19.2% JCPC Program15.8% Community Based Alternatives14.4% Source: North Carolina Accounting System and DJJDP financialrecords PROGRAM OVERVIEW ( This page left blank intentionally.) 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report details the individual findings and recommendations for each of the major objectives of the audit. To assist the reader, we have listed under the objectives the relevant questions we sought to answer during the audit. Performance audits, by nature, focus on areas where improvements can be made to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation under audit. The identification of areas for improvement should not be taken to mean that the staff has not performed it duties or provided the State with needed services within the existing resource constraints. The findings and recommendations contained in this report should be viewed in this light. In fact, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP) has made strides in all of the areas highlighted by the 1998 juvenile justice reform effort despite the fact that DJJDP’s establishment did not formally occur until July 2000. DJJDP management report that with just under three years of existence, DJJDP has managed a great deal of change in a context marked by challenges evidenced in the historical record as well as the current condition of State government. According to research conducted by the 1997 Governor’s Commission on Juvenile Crime and Justice, the historical existence of two state agencies primarily responsible for the supervision and delivery of services to juveniles adjudicated delinquent as well as the provision of prevention programs resulted in “. . . coordination lapses in case management of juveniles; communication barriers and restrictions on the sharing of information; jurisdictional issues when juveniles are released from secure facilities; and a general sense of ‘ territorialism’ between the two agencies.” 1 DJJDP’s most recent accomplishments ( listed in Appendix F, page 125) are illustrative of the fact that it has successfully worked with juvenile code reform, changes in sentencing and dispositions, and an increased emphasis on juvenile delinquency. DJJDP has established a framework for addressing juvenile delinquency through a coordination of service provision along a comprehensive continuum that stretches from youth who are in schools and communities to those who are confined to DJJDP facilities. It provides programs and services that are focused on early prevention as well as those that are oriented toward intervention and confinement. All of its programs and services fit together to form a juvenile justice system which is designed to keep the public safe from juvenile crime as well as to prevent juvenile crime from occurring. DJJDP management reports that it has accomplished this while establishing the infrastructure of a single department intended to “. . . better coordinate a genuine partnership between [ the] state and communities in dealing with the problems associated with juvenile delinquency.” 2 And DJJDP has done so with a state budget allocation that has decreased each year since its establishment. 1 Governor’s Commission on Juvenile Crime and Justice: Final Report ( February, 1998). 2 Ibid. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Objective 1 - Safety and Security: To examine how the physical conditions of the facilities affect security, including the process for reporting incidents of abuse at the Youth Development Centers. TABLE 2 Reasons for Detention Calendar Year 2002 % Delinquent ( before disposition) 40.0 Dispositional ( intermittent confinement) 37.4 Dispositional ( 30 days or less) 4.8 Contempt of Court 2.9 Undisciplined 6.1 Out of State Runaway 1.1 Return from Escape 0.8 Status Offender 4.5 Youth Devel. Ctr. Commitment 2.4 Source: DJJDP A Detention Centers is a secure, temporary where juveniles sta residential facility y while waiting to go to court or until placement can be Youth Development made in one of the Centers. O verview: Established in 2000, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention “ . . . has responsibility for enhancing public safety with regard to juvenile crime and preventing the delinquency and further delinquency of youth3. . .” A major part of DJJDP’s mission is to coordinate juvenile justice strategies in North Carolina by overseeing the State’s juvenile court offices, and Youth Development and Detention Centers. North Carolina’s juvenile courts have original jurisdiction over all youth charged with a law violation who were under the age of 16 at the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court. The court may exercise jurisdiction up to age 21 in certain delinquency cases. The courts also have original jurisdiction over all youth charged with undisciplined offenses who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. These youth are ineligible for commitments to Youth Development Centers. 4 Exhibit 3, page 18, depicts the flow of a juvenile case from complaint to disposition. When a juvenile is arrested by local law enforcement, he/ she will be transported5 by DJJDP personnel to the nearest Detention Center. The mission of the Detention Centers is “. . . to provide a safe, secure, humane environment for the juveniles, opportunities for behavioral change, and quality services and programs to each juvenile based on need. . .” 6 Table 2 shows the major reasons for detention. Detention Centers provide medical, mental health, educational, and support services while the juvenile is there. The average length of stay at a Detention Centers is 11 days. Detention Centers admitted 9,246 juvenile offenders in calendar year 2001 and 8,821 juvenile offenders in 2002. Once the juvenile has been through his/ her initial court appearance and adjudicated 3 DJJDP web page: www. juvjus. state. nc. us. 4 North Carolina General Statutes, Juvenile Code, Chapter 7B 5 The Youth Development Division of DJJDP operates 27 transportation teams whose job it is “. . . to securely and safely transport the juvenile to the nearest Juvenile Detention Centers.” 6 DJJDP web page. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS delinquent and committed to DJJDP, he/ she is processed at one of DJJDP’s two Assessment and Treatment Centers 7. The juvenile is then assigned to one of the five Youth Development Centers operated by DJJDP. “ The overall mission of the Youth Development Centers is to provide juveniles with a safe, secure environment that fosters healthy decision- making and personal responsibility. The Youth Development Centers also seek to equip juveniles with the skills necessary to become productive citizens in society once they are released.” 8 DJJDP operates five Youth Development Centers and ten Detention Centers located across the State. In addition to the ten Detention Centers operated by DJJDP, four other Detention Centers are operated by counties under contract with DJJDP. ( See Exhibit 4, page 19.) The contracted Detention Centers must follow the North Carolina Minimum Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities and the local county government policies and procedures. A Youth Development Center ( formerly called training school) is a long- term residential facility where being committed to DP by the cour juveniles, ages 10- 20, who have violated the law, reside after DJJ ts. In total, the Youth Development Centers have an operational bed capacity of 635 beds for males and 70 beds for females. At present, Samarkand Youth Development Center is the only facility that handles female offenders. The 14 Detention Centers have a total bed capacity of 322, ranging from 48 beds at Guilford to 14 beds at the Buncombe facility. Three of the five Youth Development Centers, Swannanoa, Dillon, and Stonewall Jackson, have perimeter security fences. The type of fence in place at all three of these facilities is a curved top security fence. All five of the Centers have campus style layouts. Most of the buildings used to house juveniles are over 60 years old. The housing units are contained in multiple buildings that are separate and apart from support facilities such as the school, cafeteria, gymnasium, recreation facilities, etc. Most single room layouts are linear in nature and arranged in corridors that either form separate wings or are u- shaped. 7 DJJDP established a centralized Assessment and Treatment Planning Center for males on the C. A. Dillon campus and for females on the Samarkand campus in the fall of 2002. The Dillon center now does the initial processing and assessment ( health, behavioral, educational) before the male juvenile is assigned to one of the Youth Development Centers. Females remain at Samarkand. 8 DJJDP web page. 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EXHIBIT 3 North Carolina Juvenile Justice Process Source: DJJDP web page 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AlamanceAlexanderAlleghanyAnsonAsheAveryBladenBrunswickBuncombeBurkeCabarrusCaldwellCaswellCatawbaChathamCherokeeClayClevelandC lumbusCumberlandDavidsonDavieDuplinDurhamEdgecombeForsythFranklinGastonGrahamGranvilleGreeneGuilfordHarnettHaywoodHendersonHoke redellJacksonJohnstonLeeLenoirLincolnMcdowellMaconMadisonMecklenburgMitchellMontgomeryMooreNashNew HanoverOrangePenderPersonPolkRandolphRichmondRobesonRockinghamRowanRutherfordSampsonScotlandStanlyStokesSurrySwainTransylvaniaU ionVanceWakeWarrenBeaufortBertieCamdenCarteretChowanCravenCurrituckDareGatesHalifaxHertfordHydeJonesMartinNorthamptonOnslowPaml coPasquotankPerquimansPittTyrrellWashingtonWataugaWayneWilkesWilsonYadkinYanceyEXHIBIT 4Youth Development System Bed CapacityAs of December 2002Buncombe Detention 14 BedsSwannanoa Valley YDC 258 BedsGaston Detention 24 BedsGatling Detention 30 Beds ( County) Stonewall Jackson YDC 93 BedsRichmond Detention 30 BedsSamarkand Manor YDC 70 BedsCumberland Detention 18 BedsNew Hanover Detention 18 BedsSource: DJJDPDobbs YDC 144 BedsPitt Detention 18 BedsPerquimans Detention 24 BedsWake Detention 24 BedsC. A. Dillon YDC 140 BedsUmstead Detention 20 BedsDurham Detention 14 Beds ( County) Guilford Detention 48 Beds ( County) Forsyth Detention 16 Beds ( County) Alexander Detention 24 Beds 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M ethodology: To examine safety and security issues, we conducted site visits to each of the five Youth Development Centers and six of the fourteen Detention Centers. As part of the site visits, an architectural expert who was part of the audit team, toured the buildings, discussed security and safety issues with staff, and examined recent renovations and their effects. Detailed reviews of each building used to house juveniles in secure environments at each of the Centers were conducted. Buildings used to provide support services such as school, treatment, food service, etc., were also surveyed for physical security measures. Each of the five sites was examined for perimeter security and access control. We then examined DJJDP’s Policy and Procedures Manual as well as each facility’s Standard Operating Procedures Manual as it related to security and operations. We also examined DJJDP plans for capital improvement projects, as well as the Facilities Condition Assessment Program reports generated by the Office of State Construction for the Centers. Additionally, we reviewed data on the number of attempted and actual escapes at each Center, and examined average daily population data for the Centers. Interviews and discussions with former juvenile offenders, parents, former employees, and advocacy groups were also conducted. Lastly, at each location, we judgmentally selected and reviewed a sample of alleged child abuse cases for calendar years 1999- 2002 for compliance with regulations and policies and to understand the types of safety situations that occur in the Centers. To assess the safety for staff, we also examined workers’ compensation claims for incidents involving juvenile actions against staff. This section discusses the systemic findings relative to safety and security. Appendix B, page 91, contains findings and observations on safety and security for each Youth Development Center. C on clusions: The Youth Development Centers are housed in facilities that are, for the most part, over 60 years old. Half of the Detention Centers are 30- 40 years old. Most Centers are in poor physical condition. The age and construction of the Centers increases the security risks. The concrete masonry unit walls are not reinforced or filled solid with grout as is typical of new construction for these types of facilities today. All of the Centers do not have site security and access control measures. The use of electronic security measures is virtually non- existent. Security risks are further increased by the Centers’ campus style layouts which require movement of offenders from secured housing units to various less secure buildings. Abandoned buildings obscure lines of sight allowing opportunities for escapes. Poor building layouts and high juvenile to staff ratios lessens the safety for both offenders and staff. Overcrowding at Detention Centers can result in less than optimum housing conditions for the offenders and increased pressure and stress on staff. Lastly, staff are confused over what, when, and to whom to report suspected incidents of abuse due to inconsistent policies and procedures. Estimates of the costs to achieve needed repairs and renovations, and to address equipment needs are approximately $ 44 million. DJJDP management estimates the cost to construct three new Youth Development facilities to replace the existing Centers to be $ 90 million. 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS- SAFETY AND SECURITY Security Issues: ALL YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS DO NOT HAVE SITE SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES. Three of the five Youth Development Centers, Swannanoa, Dillon, and Stonewall Jackson, have perimeter security fences. The type of fence in place at all three of these facilities is a curved top security fence manufactured by “ First Defense”. The fence is constructed of chain link fence fabric stretched between vertical support posts. The upper half of the curved section has a close mesh wire fabric applied over the standard fabric to prevent finger holds and deter climbing. There is no use of barbed wire or razor ribbon on any of the perimeter fences to further deter escape. DJJDP management feels that, with the population of youth in their custody, the risk of injury from the use of razor ribbon outweighs any benefits of its use. All three facilities are maintaining an appropriate clear- cut area on both sides of the fence to prevent trees and vegetation from being used as aids in climbing or jumping ( from trees) over the fence. Debris that falls on the fence is being removed in a timely manner. Without moving to much more costly alternatives, such as double row fencing and monitored taut wire systems, the system is an appropriate application for these facilities. Site access to the fenced facilities is via monitored remote control electric sliding gates, manual double vehicle gates that are secured with multiple chains and padlocks, and personnel gates with remote control electric locks. At one of the unfenced facilities, Samarkand Youth Development Center, site access is controlled by a single monitored remote controlled wooden gate arm. Dobbs Youth Development Center does not have any site security or access control measures. The use of electronic security measures, however, such as closed- circuit television ( CCTV), access controls, remote operated locks, panic / duress alarms, central monitoring, metal detectors, etc., is virtually nonexistent. Closed circuit television is used to monitor the remote operated fence gates at the three centers with perimeter fences, as well as limited locations at the other Centers. ( See Table 3, page 22.) The resolution on some of these monitors is so poor that only the basic shape of a vehicle is discernable. None of the Centers utilize card- key access systems ( card readers), panic / duress alarms or central station monitoring ( security control rooms). The exception is “ E” Cottage at Dillon, which is now operated as a Detention Center and does not house juveniles associated with the Youth Development Center. 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS With the exception of McWhorter and Kirk Cottages and the main office at Stonewall Jackson, there are no other remote operated locks used at Centers. The main office door has an electric strike, while McWhorter and Kirk juvenile room and housing wing exit doors utilize electromagnetic locks with group unlock function. Dillon is the only facility with a walk- through magnetometer ( metal detector). All other facilities use hand wands, primarily at visitation periods. Many housing units had only one portable radio per housing wing, while others had a fixed base unit. TABLE 3 Use of Security Technology at Youth Development Centers CENTER UNIT TECHNOLOGY MONITORED FROM Stonewall Jackson Holshouser Cottage 1 juvenile room with fixed CCTV unit office on a black and white monitor Kirk Cottage 1 juvenile room with CCTV no monitor in the unit office McWhorter; Kirk Cottages intercom system capable of two- way communication with the juvenile rooms Samarkand Ireland Cottage fixed CCTV coverage in the dayroom, laundry room, corridor and dormitory 1 black and white monitor in the unit office Frye Cottage fixed CCTV coverage in the dayroom, corridors and 1 juvenile room unit office on 1 black and white monitor Mitchell Cottage fixed CCTV in the dayroom, corridors and 1 juvenile room unit office on 1 black and white monitor Carroll Building houses the infirmary, housing wing with CCTV in corridor and 1 juvenile room unit office on 1 black and white monitor; also has a black and white monitor for fixed camera at site gate arm and controls for gate arm Source: Compiled by OSA Audit Team from Observations However, all Centers, with the exception of Dillon have security staffs. Swannanoa, through the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, has an accredited police force initially authorized by the General Assembly following two homicides committed by juveniles prior to the establishment of DJJDP. The officers have arrest powers and carry weapons. The other Centers have four to six person security staffs that provide coverage on the first and second shifts. A review of DJJDP policies and procedures for site security and access revealed that the policies were outdated. However, DJJDP is in the process of updating all policies and procedures. 9 9 DJJDP was operating under the old North Carolina Administrative Code regarding training centers ( now Youth Development Centers) under DHHS. This code had not been revised in over 10 years. Before DJJDP could establish new policies and procedures, the Administrative Code had to be updated. 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION DJJDP management should place a priority on updating and approving the policies and procedures regarding security and safety issues. Further, management should devise a plan to address the safety and security shortcomings outlined above, requesting additional funding as needed. The estimated cost to fence Dobbs and Samarkand is $ 2.2 million. If the fences are constructed, DJJDP should continue to evaluate the use of inmate labor supplied by the Department of Correction to construct the fences ( as was done at Swannanoa) as a means of controlling costs. The estimated cost of installing surveillance cameras is $ 412,500. Lastly, providing additional radios could also enhance the use of two- way radio communications and improve safety and security at the Centers. The estimated cost to provide these radios is $ 174,700. SECURITY RISKS ARE INCREASED BY THE CENTERS’ CAMPUS STYLE LAYOUTS. All five of the Centers have campus style layouts. Housing units at each Center are contained in multiple buildings that are separate and apart from support facilities such as the school, cafeteria, gymnasium, recreation facilities, etc. Having each function contained in a separate building requires movement of the juveniles from their secured housing units to these various less secure buildings. This creates a security risk by either requiring staff needed elsewhere to escort juveniles or having no staff escort and relying on visual observation of juveniles by staff located in various buildings, communicating by two- way radio the movement and actions of the juveniles. Movement of juveniles is further hindered by abandoned buildings on some campuses obscuring the view or affording hiding locations for juveniles who may choose to run and attempt escape. Table 4 shows the number of escapes and attempted escapes from the Centers for fiscal years 1998- 99 through 2001- 02. The number of escapes decreased at Swannanoa when a fence was installed in fiscal year 1999- 2000. The risk of flight is further elevated at Dobbs and Samarkand since they do not have perimeter security fencing. Also, having juveniles of different ages, classifications, gang affiliations, etc., interact with one another in conditions such as school class changes, where supervision is less than adequate, creates an environment that fosters behavior leading to intimidation and assaults. TABLE 4 NUMBER OF ESCAPES AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPES FROM YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS Fiscal Years 1998- 99 through 2001- 02 Escapes Dillon Dobbs Jackson Samarkand ** Swannanoa Total Attempted Escapes Fiscal Year * Home Center Home Center Home Center Home Center Home Center Home Center Home Center 2001- 02 1 3 0 35 2 15 4 15 7 14 14 82 3 52 2000- 01 3 1 1 24 4 8 5 28 11 11 24 72 0 36 1999- 00 2 0 1 33 4 8 1 14 16 9 24 64 Not Available 1998- 99 3 1 8 28 15 5 7 32 16 45 49 111 Not Available Total 9 5 10 120 25 36 17 89 50 79 111 329 3 88 * “ Home” indicates the number of escapes while the offender was on temporary home leave. ** Number of escapes decreased after security fence installed. Source: DJJDP Records 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION DJJDP management, along with administrators at each Center, should re- examine the use of buildings and movement of juveniles on campus. The goal should be to minimize the need to move juveniles from secure locations to less secure locations. Additionally, staffing levels at each Center should be examined to assure adequate coverage at all times. ( See page 61 for discussion of staffing issues.) THE AGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF CENTER BUILDINGS INCREASES THE SECURITY RISKS. The average age of the buildings used to house juveniles is 63 years. The majority of buildings housing juveniles have very poor sight lines. In fact, some have no sight lines from staff stations for observation / supervision of juveniles in dayrooms, toilet / shower areas, and corridors containing juvenile rooms. With the exception of Reid Cottage at the Dobbs Youth Development Center, which has dormitory style housing, most single room layouts are linear in nature and arranged in corridors that either form separate wings or are u- shaped. These layouts are not conducive to the management of the classification of juveniles typically confined in the system today. Exhibit 5 shows admissions by type of offense. The juveniles are more violent, adjudicated for more serious offenses, and are older than the type of juveniles for which the facilities were originally designed. Inadequate observation and more violent offenders have lead to increased vandalism of the facilities. Felony A- E Felony F- 1 Murder Manslaughter Violent sex offense Aggravated Assault Kidnapping Arson Armed Robbery �� Burglary Discharging firearm into occupied property Other offenses Involuntary manslaughter Burglary 2nd Degree Arson 2nd Degree Larceny Felonious possession of stolen goods Forgery Crimes against nature Taking indecent liberties with children Burning personal property Possession of a weapon Possession of Controlled substances Assault with a deadly weapon �� Assault on child under 12 Assault on an officer/ state employee Assault on school employee Assault by pointing a gun Others F- I offenses Misdemeanor 1- 3 Post- Release Supervision Simple Assault Breaking and entering Hit and Run Common law robbery Larceny Shoplifting Credit card theft Injury to real property Injury to personal property Possession of weapon at school Communicating threats Disorderly conduct Driving without a license Possession of controlled substance Other 1- 3 misdemeanors Curfew violation Failure to attend school Failure to cooperate with placement Failure to cooperate with specific treatment programs Failure to meet other requirements Positive drug test results Running away from home or placement Suspended from school. EXHIBIT 5 ADMISSIONS BY OFFENSECALENDAR YEAR 2002A- E FELONY20.3% F- 1 FELONY64.5% 1- 3 MISDEMEANOR9.3% POST RELEASE6.0% Source: DJJDP Website 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS When constructed, the concrete masonry unit walls were not reinforced or filled solid with grout, as is typical of new construction for these type facilities today. As a result, juveniles are able to, and have, picked the deteriorated mortar from joints and removed portions of walls. All juvenile- sleeping rooms have hard ceilings ( gypsum board, concrete plank, or metal pan); however, most corridors and some dayrooms have fully accessible acoustic lay- in ceilings. Accessible ceilings provide the opportunity to hide contraband and, in at least one instance, enabled a juvenile to climb into the ceiling and get above the mechanical ductwork. The ceiling had to be removed in order to extricate the juvenile. With the exception of three buildings, all locks are manually operated keyed locks. There are some Folger Adam Model 82- 6 security locks with paracentric keys but most are non- security commercial grade keyed deadbolts. The non- security doorframes installed in the walls are not anchored in the manor required for this type of population. The frames are literally being kicked out of the walls by repeated blows to the doors. Many doorframes are also rusted out in the lower jambs due to juveniles repeatedly flooding their rooms by stopping up and overflowing the toilets. Many of the remaining original doors are bowed and separating at the seams, requiring constant maintenance. Also, many of the juvenile room doors swing inward into the room allowing the doors to be barricaded from the inside and making extraction extremely difficult. While there are some security grade exterior doors with security locks and hardware, the vast majority are commercial grade standard hollow metal or glass doors with non- security builder’s hardware and locks. Glazing in most original doors is ¼ ” thick polycarbonate. In new medium and maximum doors recently installed, the Office of the State Fire Marshall required ¼ ” thick wire glass be installed on either side of the polycarbonate. The juveniles have broken most of the wire glass causing it to fracture and obscure or eliminate any vision into the rooms, meaning staff have no way of knowing what to expect when the door is opened. The security of most windows is accomplished by the use of interior mounted medium security screens. In addition to the security screens, many windows have additional barriers constructed of hinged steel angle frames with expanded metal mesh attached to the exterior of the building and secured with padlocks. While some of the original security screens have been replaced in recent years, the remaining screens are damaged and rusting. In housing buildings without central air conditioning, window air conditioners have been installed in dayrooms. These units are not secure and can simply be kicked out, leaving an opening directly to the exterior. Exterior windows are not of a security grade and are glazed with either tempered glass or ¼ ” polycarbonate. The Centers’ housing units have a mixture of rooms with and without toilet facilities in the rooms, commonly known as “ wet” and “ dry” cells. Most wet rooms have stainless steel combination penal fixtures, while others have vitreous china fixtures. None of the fixtures have provisions for controlling overflows. Juvenile rooms are outfitted with steel bunks bolted to floors or walls, steel combination shelving and writing surface units, security mirrors, light fixtures, etc., most considerably aged. Lighting levels in most rooms appear to be inadequate. 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26 Buildings housing support facilities such as school, cafeteria, gymnasium, vocations, and recreation do not have any security measures other than locks on the doors. Many of these buildings are also in poor physical condition. For instance, the gymnasium at Samarkand is infested with bats and unusable. See pictures starting on page 53. RECOMMENDATION Using the shortcomings identified above, DJJDP and Center administrators should prioritize needed repairs and renovations to ensure the security and safety of the juveniles and staff. Buildings that can no longer be used should be identified and new construction considered. ( See discussion on page 21.) What improvements / renovations would be neededat the Centers to improve the safety and security of both THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND DETENTION CENTERS BUILDINGS ARE IN POOR CONDITION. the juveniles and the staff? During the site visits, we noted that the maintenance staffs are performing an outstanding job in keeping the facilities operational with limited resources. While DJJDP does not have a formal preventive maintenance program in place, the maintenance staffs at each facility do perform routine maintenance of mechanical and electrical systems. However, due to the age and condition of the buildings, the maintenance staffs are constantly repairing doors, windows, locks, plumbing fixtures, walls, roofs, etc. On the various campuses, we noted condemned buildings, outdated or inoperable air conditioning systems, unpaved parking lots and roads, broken windows, damaged doors, etc. Major infrastructure needs have not been addressed due to lack of funds. As an example, fire alarm systems need to be upgraded at most facilities. Items such as leaking roofs have not been addressed. The day of the site visit at the Buncombe Detention Centers, staff had numerous large waste containers in the rooms to catch leaking water. See pictures starting on page 53. Currently, the money spent on repair and renovation of the facilities is merely keeping them patched together without making any substantial gains towards real improvements. Thus, recent security upgrades are not as effective as could be due to the age and construction of the buildings. For example, new maximum- security doors were installed in the B- Wing of Greenwood Cottage at Swannanoa. However, these particular doors are too heavy to be carried by the original doorframes. They are not anchored for this type of construction and the doors are causing the frames to become dislodged from the deteriorated concrete block walls. Ultimately, the security doors may become a security shortcoming themselves. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE 5 Summary of Facility Condition Assessment Program Reports on Youth Development Centers-- 2002 Center # Deficiencies Estimated Costs Dillon 29 $ 3,017,000 Dobbs 57 4,295,000 Samarkand 73 4,831,500 Swannanoa 65 4,795,000 Jackson 63 1,528,200 TOTAL 287 $ 18,466,700 Source: FCAP Reports, Office of State Construction Larger repairs and renovations are identified by the Facility Condition Assessment Program ( FCAP) section of the State Construction Office. For the year 2000, the FCAP section estimated needed repairs and renovations at the Youth Development Centers to be $ 18.5 million, as shown in Table 5. DJJDP management identified additional repair and renovations needed over and above the FCAP reports and included $ 22.5 million for the Youth Development and Detention Centers in its fiscal year 1999- 00 budget request to the General Assembly. Because of the State’s budget shortfall, this request was not acted upon. Additionally, DJJDP made a funding request in fiscal year 2002- 03 to study the construction of three new Youth Development Centers. DJJDP estimates the cost to be $ 90 million. The General Assembly approved $ 1 million to fund the programming and design costs for new facilities. RECOMMENDATION We commend DJJDP management for its foresight in requesting funds to construct three new Youth Development facilities, and we fully support the need for new facilities. New facilities would not only improve the security and safety of the juvenile offenders and staff, but would offer significant operational and management savings from more efficient operations. Since plans for the new facilities have not been finalized, we encourage DJJDP to develop several options for the consideration of the General Assembly. One such option might be to construct five new, smaller facilities at the current locations or on nearby State- owned land. A second option worth consideration is building three new facilities and significantly renovating two existing facilities. While we cannot estimate the cost of these two options, both would allow DJJDP to provide residential services at locations across the State and to minimize the distances relatives would have to travel to visit the juveniles. Auditor’s Note: Since the completion of the fieldwork, DJJDP has contracted with an architectural firm for the planning, design, and site studies for three new Youth Development Centers. 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Safety Issues: BUILDING LAYOUT AND STAFFING RATIOS CONTRIBUTE TO UNSAFE CONDITIONS. TABLE 6 Summary of Youth Development and Detention Centers Workers’ Compensation Claims 2000- 2002 375 claims for juvenile to staff injuries 1,408 lost days of work 2,814 restricted days of work $ 128,767 in short- term disability $ 640,043 in medical costs Source: Workers’ Compensation claims filed with the IndustrialCommission The State’s budget situation has had a profound effect on all State agencies, resulting in lost positions and increasing workloads for the remaining staff. This situation has been magnified in agencies that are responsible for providing around the clock staffing, such as the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Youth Development and Detention Centers are around the clock residential facilities for youthful offenders. With the passage of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act and the creation of DJJDP, the philosophy was modified from a correctional model to a therapeutic model. The Centers have experienced a decline in the number of juveniles committed, with more being served by community programs. However, there has been a significant shift in the types of juveniles being committed, to a more violent population who are more prone to acting out. At the same time the Centers are experiencing a need for more staff to safely handle these more difficult juveniles, staffing has decreased significantly. ( See page 61 for discussion of staffing levels.) When the staffing decreases are combined with the poor building layout for most of the Centers, the safety of both juveniles and staff may be put at risk. Most of the buildings were constructed prior to 1973. The most prevalent floor plan, especially for the residential cottages, is shown in Exhibit 6, page 29. The centrally located “ supervisor’s station” makes it almost impossible for a single cottage technician or even two cottage technicians to know what is happening on all halls at the same time. Thus, the number of physical incidents, especially during sleeping hours, has increased as has the number of juvenile actions against staff. Table 6 shows the results of a review of workers’ compensation claims relating to staff injuries due to juvenile actions for the past three years. 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29 EXHIBIT 6 Youth Development Center Example of Cottage Layout 15 12 11 14 13 10 9 8 16 office 6 7 3 4 5 day room Source: DJJDP 2 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION DJJDP management should identify the most critical physical layout problems and take steps to amend them. A funding request should be made to the General Assembly for short- term renovations to these sites. Staffing levels for these sites should also be closely examined to determine whether they could be improved. Lastly, management should continue to pursue funding for new construction. ( See discussion on page 26.) SOME STATE OPERATED JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS ARE OVERCROWDED. The mission of the Juvenile Detention Centers is to provide a safe, secure, humane environment for juveniles and staff, to provide juveniles an opportunity for behavioral change, and to provide quality services and programs for juveniles based on their individual needs. In order to maintain a safe, secure, and humane environment for both staff and juvenile offenders awaiting court hearings and completed placement orders, DJJDP has established maximum bed capacity for each Center. Placement of juvenile offenders in a specific Detention Centers is usually based on the county where the offense occurred, the convenience of the juvenile or his/ her family to facilitate visits, and the mandated services the juvenile should receive. For juveniles arrested at night who are transported by local law enforcement officers, DJJDP has agreed to allow the officer to transport to the nearest Detention Center to minimize driving time. If that center is over- crowded, then DJJDP personnel transport the juvenile the next day to the nearest center with available space. DJJDP records were examined to determine the average daily population at the ten State and four county operated Detention Centers. Six ( 43%) of the Centers exceeded maximum bed capacity at times during the past five fiscal years. ( See Table 7, page 31.) The overcrowding in Detention Centers creates immediate safety and security concerns for the juveniles and for the staff responsible for providing their care. In reviewing incident reports, we noted overcrowding can cause less than optimum housing conditions for the juveniles through inadequate sleeping conditions, neglect of personal hygiene / sanitation conditions, and/ or increased incidents of violent encounters among the juveniles. It also increases pressures on detention management who are dealing with existing staff shortages. Appendix A, page 89, shows the number of admission by county. Since DJJDP policy is to place juvenile offenders in the Detention Center nearest the county where the offense is committed, the Centers showing overcrowding are ones serving counties where juveniles are committing more offenses. 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE 7 Detention Centers Average Juvenile Population Highlighted entries exceed bed capacity. Detention Centers FY2002- 03 FY2001- 02 Bed Capacity** FY2000- 01 FY1999- 00 FY1998- 99 Average Alexander/ Wilkes 18 16 13 14 13 14.8 24 Buncombe 10 13 12 14 15 12.8 14 Cumberland 25 23 24 23 23 23.6 18 Durham * 9 9 10 13 14 11 14 Forsyth * 11 13 13 16 15 13.6 16 Gaston 24 25 28 29 31 27.4 24 Gatling * 23 21 24 26 24 23.6 25 Guilford * 29 32 41 34 26 32.4 48 New Hanover 19 16 22 21 22 20 18 Perquimans 15 14 16 7 N/ A 13 24 Pitt 24 23 23 20 20 22 18 Richmond 25 17 17 15 10 16.8 30 Umstead 13 16 19 22 24 18.8 20*** Wake 22 21 24 24 20 22.2 24 Total Detention Centers 267 259 286 278 257 272 317 % Change from prior year 3% - 9% 3% 8% * These are county run facilities. ** Each room is double bunked for a maximum capacity. Sex and/ or violent offenders are required to be housed in a single bunked room. *** Umstead had a bed capacity of 32 but was reduced to 20 when the center was relocated to the Dillon Campus. Source: DJJDP records RECOMMENDATION DJJDP should continue to monitor the number of juveniles housed at each Detention Center closely in order to prevent overcrowding. Existing procedures to transfer juveniles to other centers should be followed when overcrowding is detected. Further, DJJDP should examine the number of commitments by county to determine whether more Detention Centers are needed. DJJDP’s REPORTING SYSTEM FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE AND NEGLECT INCIDENTS IS NOT CONSISTENT OR EFFECTIVELY DOCUMENTED. Regulations governing DJJDP operations and DJJDP policy require staff who witnesses or have knowledge of any special incidents, such as, corporal punishment, sexual acting out, or child abuse and neglect10, file a written report of the incident with the facility Director. Further, any juvenile involved in an actual or suspected incident of abuse or neglect is to be seen immediately by the school physician on call and a report of the juvenile’s physical condition filed with the school Director. 11 Failure to report suspected 10 Title 9, North Carolina Administrative Code 5F. 1305( 1): “. . . all suspected instances of child abuse shall be reported to the local Director of Social Services within 24 hours of identification of such an instance.” June 2002. 11 Title 9 of North Carolina Administrative Code 5F. 1305( 2). Effective July 15, 2002, Title 9, NCAC 5A- 5F was repealed. 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS child abuse and neglect allegations within 24 hours jeopardizes the safety and security of the juvenile as well as exposes DJJDP to potential lawsuits. Based on a sample of abuse and neglect reports, 44% were not reported within 24 hours. During site visits to the Youth Development Centers, we judgmentally selected a sample of 131 alleged child abuse and neglect cases for calendar years 1999- 2002 to determine whether incidents were being reported in compliance with regulations. The dates of reported incidents were determined by reviewing documentation: case summary letters from local County Department of Social Services ( DSS), follow- up letters from facility Directors to local County DSS, Special Incident, Use of Force, and Body Check reports, and written statements from juveniles and witnesses. As shown in Table 8, 60% of the Special Incident reports and 86% of the Body Check/ Injury reports were missing. Further, we found that: TABLE 8 Results of Abuse and Neglect Reporting Documentation Review Special Incident Body Check/ Injury Verification Not Reported Within 24 Hours Location Sample Size # Missing Documents Percent Missing # Missing Documents Percent Missing # Not Reported Percent Dillon 32 13 41% 29 91% 15 47% Dobbs 33 22 67% 26 79% 11 33% Swannanoa 33 23 70% 31 94% 19 58% Samarkand 20 15 75% 19 95% 7 35% Jackson 13 6 46% 8 62% 6 46% Totals 131* 79 60% 113 86% 58 44% * 13 of 131 abuse and neglect cases examined were reported by non- DJJDP employees. Source: Youth Development Centers Records Only one facility ( 20%) maintained a log of suspected child abuse and neglect incidents. Only one facility ( 20%) had additional written detailed procedures supplementing the departmental procedures. Two facilities ( 40%) require staff to verbally report alleged abuse and neglect incidents to the facility Director, who reports the incident to the County DSS. Four of the facilities ( 80%) perform informal investigations; however, there are no written procedures to address this process. The reasons for non- compliance to the reporting policies were varied. The main reason appeared to be confusion over what, when, and to whom to report the incident. This confusion resulted from inconsistent or missing policies and procedures. Discussions with parents and former offenders brought out the concerns that all incidents of abuse and neglect may not be reported. They felt the reasons were retaliation against the informant and because it is a self- monitoring system where the allegation can stop at any point in the chain of command. We found nothing to indicate that all incidents were not reported, however. DJJDP is in the process of updating the policies; however, at the time of the fieldwork, these had not been approved. Thus, the Centers were still operating under procedures established by the Division of Youth Services. These procedures required each Center to have written procedures in place readily available to staff to ensure all reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation are immediately communicated to the appropriate persons and/ or agencies. The lack of specific and consistent procedures among the Youth 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development and Detention Centers contributes to staff confusion, incorrect / untimely reporting, and may jeopardize the safety of the juveniles. 12 RECOMMENDATION All suspected child abuse allegations should be reported to the local County Department of Social Services, DJJDP Facility Director, and DJJDP Central Office within the established timelines as previously prescribed under the North Carolina Administrative Code. Policies and procedures should be updated and revised as soon as possible to mirror those regulations. Specific, step- by- step procedures including a checklist should outline timeframes, chain- of- command reporting, and document requirements. A system for distributing and updating these procedure manuals should also be implemented. Once the revised polices and procedures are finalized, all staff should receive training on reporting suspected child abuse allegations. Annual training should be mandated and documented for all employees. This training should be coordinated with local County Department of Social Services personnel to ensure that all parties understand the process and their part in it. Further, suspected child abuse records should be centralized within the facility Director’s office, a list of all reported suspected abuse should be maintained, and controls implemented to secure records. DJJDP management should strongly consider establishing an independent committee for each facility composed of employees, local county Department of Social Services staff, local law enforcement officials, judges, district attorneys, parents, and concerned citizens to periodically review the overall process for reporting and investigating incidents of abuse and neglect and to make recommendations for improvements to protect the informant and juvenile from possible retaliation. 12 Just prior to the beginning of the audit fieldwork, a number of sexual abuse allegations were filed against the Swannanoa Youth Development Center. Legal proceedings were still underway at this writing. 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objective 2 – Juvenile Training, Education, Treatment, Rehabilitation: To determine the effectiveness of training, education, and treatment, rehabilitation programs. O verview: Any juvenile committed to a Youth Development Center must spend at least six months. The maximum commitment time depends on the type of offense committed and the juvenile's progress in the treatment programs while at the Center. The majority of juveniles committed to the Youth Development Centers are between 14 and 16 years old, with an average length of stay of 13 ½ months. Approximately 60% of the offenders in the Centers have specific identified needs, as shown in Exhibit 7. DJJDP is now placing more emphasis on the therapeutic, rather than the correctional, model of services to juveniles, offering educational, clinical, medical, vocational, and recreational programs. The Centers contract for medical, dental, and psychiatric services, in addition to having psychologists, social workers, and teachers on staff. The Centers seek to equip offenders with the skills necessary to become productive citizens in society once they are released. Sex Offender10% Disabilities34% EXHIBIT 7Therapeutic and Education Needs of Juveniles in Youth Development Centers FY2000- 01 Source: DJJDP Statistical Reports 050100150200250Hearing Speech/ LanguageHealth Educable MentalLearning DisabledBehavior/ EmotionTYPES AND PREVALENCE OF DISABILITIES Other 39% On Psychotropic Medication 17% Sex Offender10% Disabilities34% Hearing No Special Needs 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M ethodology: To evaluate training and education programs for juveniles, we conducted site visits to each Youth Development Center, interviewed educational staff, and reviewed a sample of juvenile education files. The files review was conducted to determine whether they contained the required documents as designated by education policies and procedures. We also evaluated instructional budget data for Center schools, comparing it to other school districts in the State. Additionally, we interviewed DJJDP Central Office staff with education program responsibilities, as well as persons within the State Department of Public Instruction. Lastly, we examined data on the number of offenders who receive GEDs while at the Centers and compared DJJDP educational funding to funding for other Local Education Authority ( LEAs) in the State. An educational expert who was a member of the audit team participated in the site visits, interviews, and data review. To evaluate the treatment and rehabilitation programs for juveniles, we conducted site visits to each Youth Development Center, interviewed clinical staff, and reviewed a sample of clinical files. Additionally, we interviewed DJJDP Central Office staff with clinical program responsibilities, as well as persons within the State Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical policies and procedures were reviewed. A clinical expert who was a member of the audit team participated in the site visits, interviews, and data review. Appendix B, page 91, contains findings and observations relative to the training/ education and treatment / rehabilitation programs for each Youth Development Center. Below are the systemic findings relative to the training, education, treatment, and rehabilitation programs at the Centers. C onclusions: The Youth Development Center schools, classified as alternative schools by DPI, still must participate to some extent in North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study. However, the requirements of that course of study are not applicable to a substantial number of the juvenile offenders. Approximately 61% of offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs / disabilities when committed to the Centers, with about 60% of them not functionally literate according to teachers. On average, only 13.2% of the offenders have completed a GED while at the Youth Development Centers. Research shows that youth offenders who complete a GED or vocational program are twice as likely to be employed after release. Further, there did not appear to be a rationale for the different specialized programs at the various Centers, community leaders had little input into the vocational education courses offered, and there was no systematic follow- up to assess vocational training or to assist the juveniles in obtaining jobs in areas where they had received training. Youth development center instructional budgets are not sufficient, did not include any funding from local education authorities, and did not have any input from departmental stakeholders. Lastly, DJJDP education administrators face unique challenges from a LEA that stretches across the State. 35 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The treatment and rehabilitation programs offered to juvenile offenders also face enormous challenges. From a departmental perspective, there is a lack of clarity about the importance and role of clinical treatment and rehabilitation in the system. Treatment programs at most Centers were disorganized, lacked resources, and may not be allotted enough time. Staff are confused on how to transition from a corrections to individual needs based clinical philosophy. Yet, there are several model programs ongoing within the system. Major shortcomings were noted in the ability to maintain active group treatment programs, and offering much needed family treatment options. Provision of these services would better justify the State’s considerable investment ($ 55,029 annually per bed) in the juvenile offenders. Lastly, the centralized Assessment and Treatment Planning Center approach represents a significant potential improvement to the clinical system. However, much work remains to integrate it in the education / treatment options at the Youth Development Centers. FINDINGS— JUVENILE TRAINING, EDUCATION, TREATMENT, REHABILITATION Juvenile Training and Education Issues: How effective are the education, training, treatment, and ehabilitatio r nprograms at THE NORTH CAROLINA STANDARD COURSE OF STUDY IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEEDS OF THE JUVENILE OFFENDERS. the Centers? Many of the juveniles committed to the Youth Development Centers have already failed in the public school system. Most are three to four grade levels behind when they come to the Centers and, as shown in Exhibit 7, page 34, 61% of the offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs. Center teachers estimate that approximately 60% of the juveniles in the Centers are not functionally literate when they are committed. One of DJJDP’s stated goals is to equip juveniles committed to the Centers with the skills they need to become productive citizens upon release. Yet, the Centers’ teachers estimate that 50% are still not functionally literate upon release, even though students in the specialized reading program make at least one month gain in reading scores for every month of enrollment. 13 Currently, the Youth Development Center schools, classified as Alternative Schools, still must participate to some extent in North Carolina’s Standard Course of Study. 14 However, the requirements for that course of study are not applicable to a substantial 13 Local Accountability Options Outcomes for 2001- 02 ( July 5, 2002). 14 Recent NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND federal legislation will impact the educational program at the Youth Development Centers. 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS number of juvenile offenders. Thus, these juveniles spend the school day, approximately 5 ½ hours, engaged in a curriculum where they have previously experienced little if any success. DJJDP’s data does not show any juveniles who received a high school diploma while at the Centers. One recent study suggests this type curriculum is irrelevant for this population. 15 According to the study, “ incarcerated adolescents function in the low- average to below- average range of intelligence, perform academically between fifth and ninth- grade levels, and have histories of high rates of academic failures and grade retention.” 16 This study found that youth offenders who completed a GED or vocational program were twice as likely to be employed after their release compared to youth who had not completed these programs. Table 9 gives data on the number of juveniles receiving GEDs while at North Carolina’s Youth Development Centers. As shown in the table, only 13.2% of the offenders received GEDs in the last 3 ½ years. TABLE 9 Percent of GED Graduates based on Average Daily Population Fiscal Year 2002- 03* 2001- 02 2000- 01 1999- 00 Total CENTER # GEDs Avg. Pop. % of Pop.** # GEDs Avg. Pop. % of Pop. # GEDs Avg. Pop. % of Pop. # GEDs Avg. Pop. % of Pop. # GEDs 3- 1/ 2yr Pop. % of Pop.** Dillon 9 131 13.7% 12 121 9.9% 9 131 6.9% 12 130 9.2% 42 513 9.9% Dobbs 2 122 3.3% 8 111 7.2% 29 157 18.5% 18 171 10.5% 57 561 10.5% Samarkand 2 60 6.7% 25 156 16.0% 31 205 15.1% 37 203 18.2% 95 624 15.5% Jackson 11 97 22.7% 30 92 32.6% 11 153 7.2% 29 154 18.8% 81 496 18.5% Swannanoa 8 192 8.3% 32 215 14.9% 26 238 10.9% 36 254 14.2% 102 899 12.2% Total 32 602 10.6% 107 695 15.4% 106 884 12.0% 132 912 14.5% 377 3093 13.2% * 2002- 03 is from July to December 2002 ** Adjusted for Estimated Annual Percentage Source: DJJDP RECOMMENDATION DJJDP management should petition the State Board of Education and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to modify the Standard Course of Study for the Youth Development Center schools. The modified curriculum should more closely address the needs of the juvenile offenders. This curriculum should include elements of the Standard Course of Study, along with: basic / applied skill instruction, general equivalency degree ( GED) and workforce investment act ( WIA) programs, community based instruction and related employability skills training, career pathway curriculum and vocational programs based on labor market demand, literacy programs, pro- social skills training, physical / health education and recreation programs, art, music, and drama, performing arts opportunities for juveniles both on and off campus, and animal therapy programs. 15 Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Winter 2001, Regina Foley, Professor of Educational Psychology and Special Education at Southern Illinois University Development Centers. 16 Ibid. 37 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS’ EDUCATION FILES FOR INDIVIDUAL JUVENILES WERE INCOMPLETE. Schools within each of the Youth Development Centers are required to maintain juvenile education records for all juveniles within the facility. During site visits at the Centers, the audit team reviewed education files to determine whether the required documentation, per policies, was included. Table 10 below summarizes the results of the file review. The review revealed that education documents were not filed in a central location. We found that teachers had documents in their class files, or that documents were filed in the juvenile’s master file instead of his/ her education file. At Swannanoa and Stonewall Jackson, we found the juvenile’s and/ or guidance counselor’s signatures and dates were missing on the form showing course of study selection by juveniles in the eighth grade and above. We should note that education staff at each Center were able to locate most issing documents identified in the review when made aware of the problem. m TABLE 10 Youth Development Center Education Files Test Results Test Results Error Dillon Samarkand Dobbs Swannanoa Jackson Total Sample Size Error Percent Missing personal education plan / scholastic development plan 19 16 12 21 2 70 148 47% Scholastic development plan or PEP not signed or dated 0 0 0 4 8 12 78 15% Required data not included in PEP/ scholastic development plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0% Missing hearing/ speech test or not centrally located 19 0 2 1 5 27 148 18% Missing Test of Adult Basic Education 1 0 0 0 1 2 148 1% Missing grades/ transcripts 1 0 0 0 0 1 148 1% Did not screen public school records 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 0% Missing GED documentation 0 0 0 1 0 1 73 1% Total Errors 40 16 14 27 16 113 969 12% Total Tested 187 184 193 184 221 % Error 21% 9% 7% 15% 7% Source: Juvenile Education Records at each Youth Development Center RECOMMENDATION DJJDP should require that the Youth Development Centers maintain a centralized education file for each juvenile containing all required education records and documentation. This file should remain with the juvenile if he/ she is transferred from one Center to another and should be forwarded to the Local Education Authority if the juvenile returns to public school. DEALING WITH JUVENILE OFFENDERS REQUIRES TEACHERS WITH A UNIQUE SET OF SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE. Teachers must meet State certification requirements prior to hiring. However, the special situations that the teachers in the Youth Development Centers have to face may require a much different skill set than that needed in a regular LEA. As noted earlier, 61% of the 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS juvenile offenders have specific identified therapeutic and educational needs when admitted to the Centers. This means that each Center instructor must be able to deal with juveniles who are not functionally literate and who may possess any number of specific identified needs such as hearing / speech / language impaired, health impaired, educable mentally disabled, learning disabled, behaviorally / mentally disabled, or on psychotropic medication. ( See Exhibit 7, page 34.) Further, school directors and building principals stated that the quality of intervention for juveniles was directly linked to the quality of staff. They further expressed concern that the block schedule functioned much like a study hall unless the staff was conscientious and qualified. RECOMMENDATION The DJJDP Superintendent should work with the Department of Public Instruction to examine the qualifications and classification for Youth Development Center teachers to determine whether these instructors should be on a separate salary schedule. Further, the Superintendent should request feedback from the building principals who utilize the block schedule to determine the strengths and problems the schools are experiencing with the block schedule. That information should be used to support, modify, or abandon the block schedule. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY RATIONALE FOR THE ARRAY OF SPECIALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE CENTERS. Table 11, page 40, shows the number and type of customized vocational programs offered at the Centers. However, we found no procedure in place for the Centers to request a specialized program. Nor did we find any evidence that the ongoing programs have identified the need for additional resources ( support staff, special equipment, etc.) to allow those programs to flourish. Evidence of involvement of local businesses and communities was also lacking. Assignment of the juvenile offenders to the various Centers based on distance from the offender’s home may not match the needs and abilities of the juvenile to the specialized programs at the Centers. Therefore, offenders may be put at an educational disadvantage depending on the Center to which they are assigned. Court Counselors do follow- up the juveniles when they are released17; however, this follow- up is not designed to assess the quality / applicability of the vocational training received while at the Youth Development Centers. Given these shortcomings, DJJDP may not be meeting its stated goal of providing the juveniles the needed skills to become productive citizens upon release. Statistics show the recidivism 17 There is a formalized system of follow- up called Post Release Supervision that is provided in the community by Court Counselors working in close collaboration with Center clinical staff ( social workers); this supervision can last for up to one year. 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS rate at the Centers to be 21% for calendar year 2002. A recent study18 commissioned by DJJDP on recidivism stated, “. . . post release efforts to rehabilitate juveniles in the early months may be the most important.” TABLE 11 Vocational Education Courses As of December 2002 Dillon Dobbs Samarkand Jackson Swannanoa Automotive Technology X X X X Computer Applications / Business Ed/ Keyboarding X X X X X VIP/ Career Exploration/ Pre- Vocational X X X X Furniture and Cabinet Making / Construction Technology X X X Horticulture / Building Grounds Maintenance X X X Barbering X Computer Technology / Computer Engineering X Broadcast Technology X Commercial and Residential Cleaning X Food and Nutrition X Graphic Communications X Pottery X Junior ROTC X Total 4 9 1 5 8 Source: DJJDP RECOMMENDATION DJJDP management should develop and implement a process for the approval of customized programs at the Youth Development Centers. This process should not only justify the need for the program, but also identify all resources that will be needed on a continuing basis. Center staff should solicit more involvement of local businesses for identification of need and support of all specialized vocational programs. A formal system of follow- up for the released juveniles should be implemented that includes assistance in finding work in the vocation for which they received training. Lastly, DJJDP should develop a method of assessing the applicability of the training provided by the Centers. Modifications to the specialized programs should be made to keep them relevant and in vocational areas where the released juveniles will be able to find work. 18 Criminal Recidivism after Commitment for Juvenile Delinquency: Report on a Study of Persons Released from North Carolina Youth Development Centers in 1996, Stevens H. Clarke, Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 2001. 40 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTER INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT. DJJDP’s per pupil expenditure ( PPE) is higher than the average PPE for all Local Education Authorities ( LEAs) in the State. ( See Table 12.) However, the Youth Development Center schools run twelve months a year, with 220 instructional days. Public schools have 180 instructional days contained in approximately 9 ½ months. TABLE 12 Per Pupil Expenditure ( PPE) Ranking, 2000- 01 ( Ranking based on 117 total school districts, highest = 1.) Source of Funds State Federal Local Total Selected LEAs PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank Mecklenburg Co.( Largest) $ 4,398.40 101 $ 272.75 95 $ 2,340.85 5 $ 7,012.00 25 Hoke County ( Medium) 4,693.60 58 388.93 43 629.27 114 5,711.80 105 Hyde County ( Smallest) 8,954.80 1 986.12 4 1,426.06 25 11,366.98 1 Jones County 6,749.63 3 684.57 9 691.88 112 8,126.08 6 Wake County 4,311.47 106 260.83 98 1,905.30 11 6,477.60 57 Total State Avg. 4,526.52 330.27 1,427.46 6,284.25 DJJDP* $ 7,890.93 647.70 0.00 $ 8,538.63 * Note: DJJDP schools run 12 months a year with 220 instructional days, public schools have 180 instructional days. Additionally, 30% of DJJDP juveniles quality for exceptional children programs, whereas statewide about 12% qualify. Source: NCDPI web site and DJJDP EXHIBIT 8 Youth Development Centers Education BudgetsFY2001- 02$ 0$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 600,000$ 800,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,800,000$ 2,000,000JacksonSamarkandDobbsSwannanoaDillionCentralOfficeTotal Budget$ 0$ 5,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ 25,000$ 30,000Per Pupil BudgetBudgetPPE Additionally, 30% of DJJDP juveniles qualify for exceptional children programs, whereas statewide about 12% qualify for these funds. Examination of total budget data for each of the Center schools shows that the allocation of those budgets may not be equitable, as shown in Exhibit 8. Because teacher salaries are based on years of experience, longevity with the State, and type of degree held, personnel costs contribute to the unequal distribution of total budgets to the schools. DJJDP’s 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Education Superintendent does allocate other expenses to the schools on a per student basis. Despite this, inequities were evident in the areas of administration, staff, instructional supplies, and capital outlay. Each Youth Development Center has a different configuration of administrative, instructional, and support staff. All had a principal and assistant principal, with the exception of Samarkand that has a lead teacher who performs the principal duties. ( See staffing discussion on page 61.) Items such as library materials, desks, chairs, tables, lab supplies, and copy machines were generally in poor condition. Additionally, there is no stable source of funding for computer equipment and internet connections. Lastly, the educational facilities themselves were in very poor physical condition. We noted deteriorating gymnasiums, the necessity of using multiple buildings for the school, and classrooms in need of extensive repair. ( See page 21 for discussion of building conditions.) A major factor affecting the adequacy and equity of funding could be that the education administrators at DJJDP, from the Education Director ( Superintendent) to the Center school principals, do not partici |
| OCLC number | 234237188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
| A |
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| F |
|
| G |
|
| L |
|
| M |
|
| N |
|
| O |
|
| R |
|
| S |
|
| T |
|
| W |
|
|
|