INTRODUCTION

The role of the Objective Decision Making Work Group is to map the current juvenile justice system to identify the critical decision points and to document the current decision making processes (objective, multi disciplinary teams, subjective recommendations, staff expertise, etc.) used at each decision point. The Work Group identifies who makes the decision/recommendation, what data is collected and how the data is used with particular attention to duplication in data collection, variations in definitions of terms, and time required to complete each process. This is not an inventory of the programs or options, but of the processes by which youth are placed or moved through the system.

Objective decision making implies that the juvenile should move along the continuum of phases from early intervention to intermediate sanctions to secure corrections. Risk and Needs Assessments are used to determine appropriate placement to ensure “the right program for the right youth at the right time”. The sanctions increase as the severity of the offense or number of offenses occur. Accountability and follow through are a crucial part of the process.

PRIORITY WORKGROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Determine the feasibility of “receiving home” facilities in East and West Hawaii where children may be placed at any time, night or day and held for a period time. This service will alleviate the police from holding youth in their custody and relieve them from determining which agency has the lead role in placement and services. Personnel from all agencies involved can access the youth, assess the situation, have preliminary input and meet in a multi-disciplinary team setting to establish roles and identify appropriate placement.

2. An integrated model of care is needed. The situation remains where youth with multi-agency involvement may have several social workers from different agencies implementing different treatment plans. While parties participate in coordinated service planning it is currently only for youth that are involved with the *Felix Consent Decree and it is primarily mental health directed. Cross training opportunities need to be created. Discussions should be held as to the possibilities of blended funding and ways to streamline access to confidential information in order to better serve children and their families.

3. Need for more resources. Youth need to be qualified as Felix class to access therapeutic programs such as multi-systemic therapy and teaching family homes. There is heavy reliance on mental health services and a limited array of graduated sanctions for non-Felix youth. There needs to be more opportunities for youth to earn restitution and perform meaningful community service that has a relation to the crime committed. The victim piece needs to be strengthened by looking at current legislation relating to confidentiality and liability laws. Sources of funds to support programs such as forfeiture monies should be explored. Community and business engagement through education and involvement needs to be worked on. Access to substance abuse urinalysis and treatment and Juvenile Sex Offender treatment are particular concerns.

4. Runaways and chronic school non-attendees are an under served population. There is no agency that has the capacity to address the broad scope of status offender services at this time,

*Federal Court order requiring the State of Hawaii to provide services to eligible individuals under the "Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)", Section 504 in need of mental health services.

The discussion that follows describes how youth enter the Hawaii County Juvenile Justice System. The Child Welfare Services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and the Department of Education systems follow.

The Decision Makers for Referrals and/or Arrest

Law Enforcement Officers
Family Court Judge
District Traffic Court Judge
The Hawaii County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney
Family Court Intake Unit
Department of Education
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division (Family Guidance Center)
Child Welfare Services
Salvation Army’s Family Intervention Services’ Project Ho’okala

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Decision Makers:

Police Officers
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney

Decision Making Tools:

Hawaii County Code and Ordinances
Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended
Criminal Law Probable Cause Requirements
Juvenile Procedural Guide for Law Enforcement Prosecutor’s Manual: National Prosecution Standards
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney In-House Manual

The Decision Making Process:

Section 803-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended gives police officers the authority to take any person into custody. The arrest must be based on probable cause, that is there must be sufficient evidence to show that the youth committed the offense charged. This may be determined by the offense being committed in the presence of the officer or through information obtained by the victim or witnesses.

Once the youth is arrested, the officer has several options. For status offenses, the officer completes a report and forwards it to the Family Court. The youth is returned home or if the parent or guardian is unavailable or refuses custody, a referral is made to The Salvation Army’s Family Intervention Service’s Project Ho’okala. For traffic violations, a citation for appearance in Traffic Court is issued. First time misdemeanor offenders are routed to the Hawaii Island Teen Court. West Hawaii police divert first time alcohol related offenders to participate in alcohol education and restorative community service in their internal program called Project Impact in lieu of the traditional arrest and charge. Reports for repeating misdemeanor offenders are routed to Family Court. Felony charges are sent to the Office of the Prosecutor to determine whether there is legal sufficiency to sustain the charge, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The probation officer also seeks consultation with the Office of the Prosecutor for decisions to petition petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor cases. For more serious offenses and bench warrants, an intake probation officer in consultation with the police and deputy prosecutor determines whether the youth is detained, sheltered or released to his or her parent or guardian (HRS 571-31.1).

Recommendations:

A system-wide risk assessment/diversion matrix for youth who enter the system and a comprehensive intake and assessment center coupled with technology to access information systems.

The police have tracked recidivism rates for Project Impact and report that the program has successfully met outcomes in reducing the rates of re-arrest for underage alcohol use. County-wide access to Project Impact is recommended.

DETENTION

Decision Makers:

Intake Probation Officers
Family Court Judge
Deputy Prosecutor
Defense Attorney

Decision Making Tools:

Family Court Rules
Hawaii Revised Statutes
Criminal Law Probable Cause Requirements
Shelter and Detention Criteria

Decision Making Process:

Temporary Detention:

The charging decision is made prior to the acceptance of the youth into secure custody. The State of Hawaii has a unified court system and a single detention facility located on the island of Oahu. Neighbor island circuits, such as Hawaii County hold juveniles in temporary cells until the next day for court. On weekends, law enforcement or probation officers escort the juveniles by air to the detention facility on Oahu if they need to be held beyond 24 hours. The juvenile is returned to Hawaii County for his or her initial and subsequent detention hearing.

Hawaii County is in compliance with federal guidelines for deinstitutionalization of status offenders, sight and sound separation of juveniles in lockups and jail removal jail and lockups.

Detention Hearing:

If a juvenile is secured a detention hearing is held within twenty-four hours excluding court holidays and weekends. The minor is served with a petition or motion for revocation of probation. The juvenile is entitled to have a judge determine whether there is sufficient probably cause to continue holding him or her. A Probation Officer’s Report is submitted to the court that addresses the severity and frequency of the alleged violations, offense history, whether previous control measures have failed, if there is some one who is willing to appropriately supervise the juvenile and the likelihood of the minor absconding or re-offending.

If the Family Court makes a finding of detention, rehearing is scheduled for 7 days or to an adjudication or disposition court date. The court may also release the juvenile into an appropriate placement or with orders to follow certain conditions.

Videoconferencing capacity to hear certain cases for youth in Detention Home is a technological asset that is available on both sides of the island. Videoconferencing capacity needs to be developed at the Detention Home for this process to work for juveniles.

Recommendations:

Hawaii County has a paucity of Department of Public Safety deputy sheriffs that are available for off hour response for temporary detention. The Department of Public Safety should augment their resources with a private security contract in order to provide greater responsiveness to the police for release of minors in their custody to detention and to provide a level of safety and security that may not otherwise be provided by probation officers who are social workers and not correctional officers.

When Hawaii County youth are sent to Oahu’s detention facility, Hale Ho’omalu they are isolated from family supports and programs from their communities of origin. Alternatives such as tracking, electronic monitoring and other best practices for youth who qualify for detention but may not pose a serious threat to the community given adequate supervision and programming should be explored.

An assessment center where evaluations would occur and resources and wrap provisions authorized so qualified youth may remain in enhanced community placements in lieu of detention. Discussion needs to take place as to interagency collaboration in order to access alternatives to detention through blended funding or utilizing hybrid case management.

There is healthy discussion as to whether a detention facility/program should be localized on the Big Island, which should be explored through quantitative analysis.

INTAKE

Decision Makers:

Juvenile Probation Supervisors
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Family Court Judge

Decision Making Tools:

Teen Court criteria
Informal adjustment guidelines
Hawaii Revised Statutes
Criminal Law Probable Cause requirements
Family Court Judge’s discretion

Decision Making Process:

Screening:

Felony cases that are routed by the police after investigation are screened by a designated Family Court deputy for final charging and petitioning. The Family Court deputy also determines whether to initiate waiver of jurisdiction petition for transfer to adult criminal court.

Misdemeanor charges are sent by the police to Family Court. The probation officer utilizes informal adjustment guidelines to determine whether the matter is to be adjusted or routed to the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for a charging decision. The probation officer initiates misdemeanor petitioning.

The intake probation supervisor schedules law violation petitions anywhere from several days to two months from the receipt of a law violation petition depending of seriousness of the offense.

Status offenses such as runaway and curfew are diverted to The Salvation Army Family Intervention Services’ (SAFIS) Project Ho’okala. School Nonattendance petitions are filed and set for hearing. A handful of referrals for those repeating 17 year old youth with no prospect of graduating are diverted to SAFIS. There are no Family Court staff supports dedicated to address these types of referrals.

Staff and resource limitations make it impossible for Family Court to place each status offender and law violator under court jurisdiction and supervision. Most cases need to be referred elsewhere. Some cases require more time and resources than others.

Recommendations:

Family Court needs to identify its core mission and prioritize the provision of services. Community capacity should be encouraged to address gaps in the diversion of status offenders and school non-attendees. The family court should take jurisdiction and assume supervisory responsibility for the status offenders only when such action is necessary to insure the safety of the child. All children that enter the family Court system should receive an appropriate risk assessment before they are diverted or petitioned to Family Court.

COURT HEARINGS

Decision Maker:

Family Court Judge

Decision Making Tools:

Family Court Rules
Hawaii Revised Statutes as amended
Judge’s Bench book
All submitted evidence and arguments
Youth Level of Service Inventory

Decision Making Process:

Waiver of Jurisdiction Hearing:

Upon the filing of a motion for waiver of jurisdiction to adult criminal court, the probation officer arranges a forensic evaluation and conducts a full investigation that addresses the statutory criteria (HRS 571-22). The Family Court certifies whether the case should remain in Family Court or transferred to Adult Criminal Court. Cases may range from certification of adults who have committed acts as juveniles to youth of any age who are accused of murder and attempted murder of the first and second degree. Transfer of a minor for criminal proceedings confers jurisdiction to that court in respect to any subsequent acts.

Adjudication Hearing:

The minor appears for an initial hearing with his or her parents and if counsel has not been appointed or if the minor is represented by an attorney and a denial is entered, a further proceeding hearing is set on average in 3 to 4 weeks. Typically, a plea agreement is reached and the minor is scheduled for a disposition hearing. Pre-disposition orders may include letters of apology, referral for a restitution determination, and any form of assessment such as mental health or a substance abuse evaluation. Upon denial of the charge, trial is placed on the calendar. If the minor is in detention, trial is set within 15 days unless there is an agreement for a more extended period. A finding of responsibility is based on the allegations proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Disposition is set in six weeks for detainees. If the juvenile is not detained, disposition is scheduled in eight weeks.

Disposition Hearing:

Once the court finds the minor to be within the jurisdiction of the court as a law violator or status offender, the court may order a social study to be conducted. The report addresses the harm that was done and the impact of the crime on the victim and the community. An investigation is conducted as to restitution. The study investigates the minor’s past and current adjustment at home, in the community and in school. Historical data is collected as to previous referrals, family situation, physical and mental health of the minor and involvement with other service providers. Appended are mental heath, school and other relevant reports and assessments. If a social study is not ordered, the minor may be counseled and released or disposition may be made an informal adjustment.

Balanced and restorative justice principles are addressed in how to make the offender accountable for the crime that was committed and to repair the harm by apology, community service and monetary restitution. The court may also order the youth to attend Victim Impact Classes or other similar programs that may be available in the future. Competency development is through school attendance or participation in skill based programs. Community safety conditions may include curfews and restrictions, supervision requirements and no-contact orders.

For youth who have mental health and educational needs, they are court ordered to participate in programs that are provided by the respective agencies responsible for such delivery of services.

The Youth Level of Service Inventory is currently being validated as an assessment tool to guide court recommendations, assess risk and needs, and to standardize case management and workload distribution. In addition, there is work in progress in the development of a localized tool, the Juvenile Risk and Needs Assessment to determine whether community placement or correctional facility commitment is appropriate. Both of these tools are currently being used on a small scale.

Recommendations:

Many of the youth at risk are involved with several State agencies. A juvenile court probationer may also be the subject of a child protective services case. The same youth may also receive “high end” mental health services from the Department of Health’s Family Guidance Center or “low end” school based mental health services from the Department of Education. Several social workers may be involved with one family and each may be driving their own treatment plan causing confusion and unnecessary duplication of effort. At present most coordinated service planning is mental health directed. A more holistic and integrated model of care and system of delivery is needed.

A recent decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court has called into question the power of he family Court to order some State agencies to provide specific services for children. Discussions need to take place between all affected State agencies to insure that youth receive a seamless array of necessary services. If this does not occur, some essential services such as juvenile sex offender treatment and substance abuse treatment may not be available to youth who urgently require such services. A child should not be confined at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility solely because the State of Hawaii has failed to provide the child with services that are necessary to maintain the child in the community safely.

Criteria are needed to determine where the system should bifurcate, that is when a youth should be held accountable through violation of probation or to be addressed at a higher level of care when noncompliant in their mental health treatment plan

A system-wide assessment instrument should be used at the first contact with juvenile justice system.

There is a need for more skill based programs to build competencies and core abilities.

Court Reviews and Motion to Revoke Probation:

The Court holds periodic reviews to monitor a probationer’s compliance to conditions and to review the status of youth who are in out of home placements. If a probationer violates a rule of probation or commits a new offense, the minor may be subject of revocation of probation and subsequent disposition. The subsequent disposition may result in modified terms of probation or have his or her probation revoked and committed to the youth correctional facility. Motions to revoke probation must allege that the youth has failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed as a condition of probation. The failure to comply must be inexcusable. Motions are accompanied by a probation officer’s report outlining the nature of the violation. Requests for bench warrant for arrest and placement in shelter or detention pending hearing may be made to secure minor’s appearance.

At the revocation hearing, the minor is afforded due process with the finding based on a preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. The options of the court are always limited by the availability of community resources. There is a need for more intermediate sanction programs and facilities. On occasion youth may be sentenced to the correctional facility for the purpose of accessing their array of services not available in the community.

Recommendations:

Youth need to be qualified as Felix class in order to access therapeutic programs such as multi-systemic therapy and teaching family homes. There is heavy reliance on mental health services and a limited array of graduated sanction programs for non-Felix youth. There need to be more opportunities for youth to earn restitution or perform meaningful community service that has a relation to the crime committed. The victim piece needs to be strengthened by looking at current legislation relating to confidentiality and liability laws. Sources of funds to support programs such as forfeiture monies should be explored. Community and business engagement through education and involvement needs to be worked on.

Purchase of Service Contractors: The Salvation Army Family Intervention Services for shelter and long term placements; Hawaii Island YWCA Teen Court; Turning Point for Families - Alternatives to Violence; limited urinalysis monies for indigent families; Catholic Charities Juvenile Sex Offender Program; Kui Kahi Mediation (YMCA).

HAWAII YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Decision Makers:

Parole Hearing Officer
Parole Officer
Multi-disciplinary Team
(Teachers, Mental Health Care Coordinator, staff psychologist)

Decision Making Tools:

HCYF Administrative Policy
Court reports
Educational reports
Assessments and evaluations of the ward
Offense/incident reports

Commitment:

While the Family court may retain the jurisdiction over an individual until age 20, the court has no authority to order confinement after age 19. As a result, any services received by the youth until age 20 are essentially voluntary in nature. Youth may be committed to the HYCF for short terms less than one year, to their minority or to age 19 or 20 where legal custody is vested to the Executive Director of the Office of Youth Services.

Youth who are committed for less than 30 days routinely do not receive assessments and receive tutoring rather than attending the facility’s Olomana School. There is no facility generated step down planning done due to the limited time the youth is remanded to the custody of the OYS director.

Initial diagnostic meetings ...

Are scheduled upon the youth’s arrival. Members of the team are the mental health care coordinator if the ward is Felix class, educators from Olomana School, the HYCF social worker and parole agent. Documents reviewed are psychological/psychiatric evaluations, court reports and educational records. All wards undergo substance abuse and psychological risk assessments.

For qualified youth, Individual Evaluation Plans, Modification Plans and Coordinated Service Plans are held separately with their findings provided to the diagnostic team.

The diagnostic team recommends types of programs and services, level of service provisions and supervision while the ward is in the facility and in community release planning. Discussion is held with providers as to the appropriateness of their program in meeting the ward’s needs and in conjunction with the supports given by the parole agent.

Review diagnostic meetings ...

Are scheduled every three months or sooner. The team evaluates the youth’s progress or lack thereof and makes adjustments, calls for further assessments and develops transition plans for discharge.

Furlough ...

An unescorted release into the community of short duration for purposes such as medical treatment, educational purposes or employment. The ward may also participate in a daily release and return program. If a youth elopes during furlough, the ward is arrested by police, charged with escape and returned without due process to the facility.

Parole ...

A conditional release from the HYCF, generally for longer duration than furlough. The diagnostic team determines the goals the ward needs to meet to qualify for parole, such as educational milestones, cottage and school conduct, and participation and progress in-facility programs. If a violation occurs, a detention order alleging the violation of the terms of parole from the facility is issued. Upon police arrest, the ward is returned to the facility and within 30 days a detention hearing and revocation hearing is heard. The ward may request counsel. Members of the hearing are the ward, counsel, the parole officer and the chairman of the hearing, the parole administrator. If a denial is entered, parties have the right to call witnesses and produce witnesses. Upon admission or the chairman making a determination that the ward has violated parole beyond a reasonable doubt, the chair may suspend parole until a more appropriate program or placement can be found, or revoke parole. Revocation results in diagnostic process with a review held within 60 days.

Within three months of the expiration of the order of commitment, letters of notification of the ward’s impending discharge are sent to the parent, committing circuit court, police and prosecutor. Discharge occurs when the commitment period expires.

Third Circuit Family Court has a proportionate commitment rate to its juvenile population and a low recommitment rate. As compared to other circuits there is a significant number of youth committed to age 19. Hawaii County has a lower arrest, conviction and confinement recidivism rate compared to the Statewide means. More research is needed to determine what these numbers represent as to the effectiveness of post release supervision.

Recommendations:

• Develop a better system of tracking and supervision for youth on parole and furlough (revisit moving this responsibility back to juvenile court and probation with appropriate funding).
• Develop a Statewide system for notifying all police departments and probation departments about youth who are absent without authority from the DH, HYCF and hospitalization placements.
• Develop comprehensive strategy
• Develop continuum of sanctions
• Implement research based programs that have demonstrated to effective in reducing recidivism
• Utilize objective risk and needs assessment process

Purchase of Service Contractors:

Residential placements: Child and Family Services Group Homes (Teen Living Care Program/Foster Care Model); Hale Kipa Inc. - Hanai Homes, Independent Living Program; Hale ‘Opio Kauai Inc. (Group Home/Foster Home); John Howard Association of Hawaii Hui Ola Transitional Group Home; Maui Farms Group Home; Maui Youth and Family Services Independent Living Program and Group Home; The Salvation Army Family Intervention Services Group Home and Independent Living Program

Services: Hale Kipa tracking program, Kalihi YMCA substance abuse assessment and services.

CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

Decision Makers:

Law Enforcement
Department of Health Social Worker
Family Court
Parents
Service Providers

Decision Making Tools:

HRS 587
HAR 17-920.1
Department of Health Procedures
Evaluations, Assessments, and Reports
Family History

Decision Making Process:

The police officer makes the initial decision to return or not to return a youth to the parent or care giver. The officer has two options in which Child Welfare Services (CWS) may be involved:

Release youth to parent care giver with report to CWS Intake due to concern involving harm or threat of harm.

a) CWS will follow up with the family if warranted within a reasonable period of time based on risk assessment or current involvement with the family (High/Severe risk of harm per Risk Matrix).

b) CWS will refer the family out for diversion services for follow up (Moderate/Low risk of harm per Risk Matrix).

c) CWS will route intake “For Information Only” if deemed low risk per Risk Matrix.

Youth not able to be released to parent/care giver.

a) Police custody by police officer assumed without court order if concern exists due to harm or threat of harm by the care giver. “If in the discretion of the police officer, the child is in such circumstance or condition that the child’s continuing in the custody of the child’s family presents a situation of imminent harm to the child (HRS 587-22). Upon completion of transfer of protective custody, the Department of Human Services (DHS) shall automatically assume temporary custody of the child.”

Concern is based on Mental Health issues. The police officer notifies Hawaii Community Health Services for immediate assessment and assistance. If the youth is assessed to be a danger to self or others, then transport to the hospital or emergency room procedures will be followed to have the youth stabilized or committed. An intake to CWS may still be warranted for follow up regarding child abuse or neglect issues as required by Mandated Reporters (HRS 350).

The child is released to CWS and investigation is initiated HRS 587-21).

Protective custody has been assumed (HRS 587-24) or legal custodial care giver has signed a Voluntary Foster Custody Agreement (HRS 587-21(b)(2). Placement is arranged in a DHS licensed foster home or emergency shelter home (The Salvation Army Intervention Services Hilo or Kona shelter) or special licensed foster home (i.e usually a relative who has passed essential background checks).

a) If protective custody has been assumed, the CWS worker must file a petition within 72 hours (three working days) to substantiate cause for concern in regard to the family’s ability to provide the child with a safe family home. The social worker submits a social study (Safe Family Home Report) based on the Safe Family Homes Guidelines (HRS 587-25) to document the strengths and identified problems in the family home. A Service Plan is developed and court ordered if indicated, to assist the family in resolving identified problems that prevent the child from returning to the family home (HRS 587-26). Review hearings are scheduled at least every six months to monitor progress and to make adjustments in goals and services.

b) Voluntary Custody, in agreement between the family and DHS may be for a period of time not to exceed 180 days in duration. By CWS procedure, the agreement should not exceed ninety days to assure compliance with federal regulations. A Voluntary Service Plan must accompany voluntary custody.

c) The family can be offered the ‘Ohana Conferencing option (kinship care) to assist in developing a Service Plan to resolve identified problems and to identify alternative custodial care for the child if identified problems cannot be resolved within federally mandated time frames. The family will come to the attention of the Family Court to establish a legal permanent custodian for the child or to initiate court ordered services towards reunification if parents are not able to resolve problems within six months (HRS 587-21(b)(2).

Child is returned to care givers.

a) The investigation is not confirmed or unsubstantiated. The case will be closed and the family may be referred out for diversion services through Kapiolani Child Protection Center.

b) The investigation results in confirmation of harm or threat of harm but the child is returned to the care givers with voluntary or court ordered service plan (HRS 587-21(b)(2) or HRS 587-26).

Recommendations:

Not infrequently there is confusion as to which agency has the lead role in making decisions involving child custody and placement. This can be considered a primary concern in cases in which the child is a law violator with mental or behavioral problems (i.e. substance abuse affected at the time the police are notified) and family is known to be or believed to be dysfunctional.

It is highly recommended that a “receiving home” facility be opened in East Hawaii and in West Hawaii where children can be placed at any time, night or day, and held for a period of time. Personnel from all agencies involved can access the youth, assess the situation, have preliminary input and then meet in a multi-disciplinary team setting to establish roles and identify appropriate placement.

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The Decision Makers for Referrals for Student Support within the DOE:

Student Services Coordinators (SSC)

Parent/guardians/surrogate parent of the student
The student when appropriate
Teachers
School Counselors
School Administrators
Related Service Providers
Family Court
Department of Health
Child Welfare Services
Public Health Nursing
Early Intervention, Easter Seals

The Decision Making Tools:

Hawaii Content and Performance Standards
Comprehensive Student Support Systems (CSSS) structure and process
Schools’ Request for Assistance Form (RFA)
Chapter 19: Student Misconduct, Discipline
Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Chapter 53: Modification Plan
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Chapter 56: Individualized Education Program (IEP)
Classroom Assessment Data
Standardized Tests
Record of Referrals to School Counselor
Disciplinary Records
Anecdotal Records
Social Work Report
Evaluations for Related Services

Decision Making Process:

The decision process begins when there is a concern about academic skills, behavior, physical health, or emotional health, which may be affecting the student’s progress in school. Utilizing the Comprehensive Student Support System, a team meeting is convened to discuss the identified concern. This team consists of persons knowledgeable about the student, including, but not limited to, school personnel, parents, family members, representatives from government and community agencies, and even the student when appropriate.

Possible options to deal with the concern may include school-level interventions or a referral for a comprehensive academic/behavior evaluation. The team decides on appropriate interventions for school-level services and establishes a system for monitoring the student’s progress. Should the team agree that further evaluation of the concern is warranted, it will decide which assessments are needed to determine the eligibility, program, and placement under either the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA–special education) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These assessments could include classroom data, standardized tests, clinical assessments, and medical reports.

After the assessments are completed, the team reconvenes to determine the student’s eligibility under the IDEA, Section 504 or other programs and service. If the student does not meet the eligibility criteria for a particular program, the team decides on appropriate school-level interventions as well as a method to monitor the student’s progress. If the student is eligible for IDEA or 504, the team decides on an appropriate program and services to address the student’s needs, and also develops either an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for IDEA-eligible students or a Modification Plan (MP) for Section 504-eligible students. The team is also involved in developing and implementing a Coordinated Service Plan for students who require intensive services.

Reviews and reevaluations are held periodically to ensure that the program and services continue to meet the student’s needs. The team meets at least annually to review the IEP or MP, and revisions are made as needed. Review meetings can be held as often as necessary to maintain an appropriate level of services. A comprehensive re-evaluation to determine continued IDEA eligibility is conducted once every three years or earlier if appropriate.

In situations involving disciplinary action, the school’s discipline plan and the Department of Education’s Chapter 19 procedures are discussed with the student and parents by a school administrator. Government and community agency representatives, as well as other service providers, may also be involved in this process.

Recommendations:

Referrals for chronic absenteeism are also received from the school. The effectiveness of intervention varies widely depending on the type of cases that schools bring to court. It is suggested that the schools file petitions where court intervention may make a difference such as the younger student with serious family problems.

Purchase of Service Contractors:

Micheal O’Byrne, M.D.; Child and Adolescent Resources for Education, Inc. (CARE), The Institute for Family Enrichment (TIFFE), Aloha House, and Effective Change.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION

The Decision Makers:

Parent/guardians/surrogate parent of the student
The student when developmentally appropriate
Teachers
School Counselors
School Administrators
Related Service Providers
Family Court Probation Officers
CAMHD – Family Guidance Center Mental Health Care Coordinators
Child Welfare Services Social Workers
Public Health Nurses
Easter Seals Representatives
Other community members involved with the child who know the child very well

The Decision Making Tools:

Felix Consent Decree
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards
Comprehensive Student Support Systems (CSSS) structure and process
Chapter 19: Student Misconduct, Discipline
Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Chapter 53: Modification Plan
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Chapter 56: Individualized Education Program (IEP)
Classroom assessment data
Standardized Tests
Record of referrals to school counselor
Disciplinary Records
Anecdotal Records
Professional discretion
Coordinated Service Plan
CAMHD Clinical Standards
Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS)
Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP) principles
Achenbach Child Behavior Checklists
Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS)
DOE and DOH Joint Interim Procedures and Guidelines
Research on empirically supported treatments

Process:

The Department of Education (DOE), using the guidelines specified in the “DOE Special Needs Identification/Decision Process for All Youth” and the “DOE Youth Identified as 504 or IDEA Eligible”, will first determine if a child has a disability that is impacting his or her education. If it is determined that the child has a mental health need that is part of that disability, that child can be eligible for mental health services under the Felix Consent Decree.

Once the child is identified as having a mental health need, the next step is for a team [minimum requirements for a team is a parent, teacher, school counselor, school administrator, and if necessary a Mental Health Care Coordinator (MHCC) from CAMHD] to generate an Individual Education Plan (IEP) or Modification Plan (MP). The IEP or MP will identify the mental health disability and the services to be offered to the child and family as part of their right to access to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The guardian has the right to accept or reject this offer of FAPE. It should be noted here that all services (unless court ordered) provided by the CAMHD are voluntary. If a guardian rejects the offer of FAPE, they can secure educational and mental health services for their child through their own personal funds and/or medical insurance.

The level of service the child needs will determine which agency will coordinate the needed mental health services. Under the current School-Based Behavioral Health system, there is a Comprehensive Student Support System (CSSS) supported jointly by the DOE and CAMHD in which there are 5 levels of service (see CSSS manual). Levels 1, 2, and 3 are primarily outpatient services and are considered less intensive, such as therapy, behavioral management and psychiatric services. These services are provided by the DOE, either by DOE employees or contracted provider agencies. These services are coordinated and monitored by a Student Services Coordinator (SSC) at the school. Levels 4 and 5 are more intensive levels of support and are administered by CAMHD - Hawaii Family Guidance Center (HFGC) employees or contracted provider agencies. (The Hawaii Family Guidance Center is the Big Island branch of the CAMHD). These services can include intensive case management, intensive community-based mental health services, and therapeutic out-of-home placement, and are coordinated and monitored by an HFGC Mental Health Care Coordinator (who provides the intensive case management). In order to facilitate regular communication between the DOE and the FGC, the SSC and the MHCC meet weekly to discuss the educational progress of the children they are monitoring.

A child receiving mental health services in levels 1, 2, and 3 under the CSSS will not typically be involved with the HFGC. The SSC will oversee and coordinate services and based on the child’s progress, can recommend to the IEP or MP team that the current level of service (within levels 1, 2, and 3) be changed without involving CAMHD/HFGC staff. However, if a child is to receive services at the 4th and 5th levels of service, the HFGC will be involved and an MHCC should be included in the planning meetings for that child.

After the IEP or MP is in place and being implemented, any changes to the level of service the child is receiving must be submitted to the IEP or MP team for approval. In preparation for that IEP or MP meeting, the SSC and MHCC should meet to insure that the team will have the information necessary in order to make an appropriate determination about the child’s needs. The determination will be made by the team using the DOE/DOH Joint Interim Procedures and Guidelines.

Coordinated Service Plan (CSP)

In many cases referred to CAMHD through the DOE, there is multi-agency involvement that may include a number of separate plans for an individual child and/or family. For example, a child may have an IEP created to address their educational needs. The child may also have conditions of probation (as a result of past delinquent behavior) to satisfy criminal justice needs. In addition, if child welfare services are involved, there will be a service plan, which addresses the safety needs of the child and family. The Coordinated Service Plan (CSP) is the umbrella plan that is responsible for coordinating the services and efforts of all agencies for an individual child. Its goals are as follows:

• Insure that all the separate plans work in agreement and are not in conflict with one another.
• Assist the family in understanding the services being provided and why they are being recommended, and facilitate family involvement in the treatment process.
• Identify and address any duplication in services being provided by different agencies.
• Facilitate the integration of the separate plans.
• Identify and include all formal and informal supports for the child and the family.
• Foster a shared sense of accountability among all team members for the care being provided to a child and family.

A CSP is created for any child receiving intensive case management from the HFGC. This is done by the MHCC convening a CSP team made up of the family, the youth (when developmentally appropriate), informal community resources involved with the youth, and professionals from the different agencies that are currently servicing the child. The MHCC is the facilitator of the CSP meeting. As facilitator the MHCC must help the team identify the strengths of the child and the family along with any formal and informal resources available. The plan should then be built around these resources and strengths. The plan (and team decisions about the plan) should also be based on some objective measures of client progress (such as the CAFAS, CALOCUS, Achenbach, grades, attendance, etc), which the MHCC can assist the team in gathering and interpreting. In addition, the MHCC must also engage all team members to participate actively in the development and implementation of the plan. Lastly, the MHCC should help to insure that all of the individual plans that are in place for a child are honored and addressed within the CSP. The MHCC is then responsible for insuring that the CSP is implemented by all team members and will be responsible for convening the CSP team at least once every three months (or more if appropriate) to monitor the child’s progress.

The MHCC is the CAMHD representative on the CSP team who is responsible for coordinating the intensive mental health services for the child. As a CAMHD representative, the MHCC must insure that the Child and Adolescent Service System Program principles, and other guidelines under the Felix Consent Decree, are followed.

Recommendations:

· The lag time between when a child breaks the law and when he or she is made accountable for their actions is too long.

· There needs to be more community resources for administering toxicity screening of adolescents abusing drugs. This is a key tool in monitoring the child.

· More resources are needed to serve status offenders.

· There should be a community group that looks at and addresses community service gaps. This may help to decrease the number of disagreements that can occur between agencies when there are limited resources. State agencies should not be taking each other to court as a means to address these resource issues.

Rubbing Points:

1) All parties need to be compelled to be active participants in the development and implementation of the CSP. The issue is that not all parties follow what is agreed to in the CSP team meeting. CSPs can be maximally successful when:

a) Family Court Judges continue to support CSP team decisions.

b) Individual departments view the CSP as a meaningful way to coordinate services aimed at the child.

c) CSP team members feel shared responsibility for the success of the plan.

2) There continues to be misunderstanding about what the Felix Consent Decree’s purpose is and CAMHD’s resulting scope of service. There appears to still be some misinformation in the community about who is eligible for services and what services CAMHD can provide under the Felix Consent Decree.

3) When resources are limited, there needs to be an agreed upon mechanism between the agencies for addressing these community service gaps.

Purchase of Service Contractors:

Bountiful Psychiatric Hospital dba Benchmark Behavioral Health Systems, Child & Adolescent Resources for Education, Inc., Child and Family Service, West Hawaii Unit, Child and Family Service, East Hawaii Unit, Children’s Comprehensive Services, Inc., Family Support Services of West Hawaii, Hawaii Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Hawaii Family as Allies, Helping Hands Hawaii, Institute for Family Enrichment, Kaniu I LLC, Marimed Foundation for Island Health Care Training, Rise Institute, Sutter Health Pacific dba Kahi Mohala, and The Queens Medical Center.

Youth Involvement
Personal Reflections - Halana Ka Mana’o Youth Summit

INTRODUCTION

Mission Statement for the Youth Involvement Group:

The youth of Hawai’i County will have a voice in all strategic planning areas / groups; and all adults will listen to their voices.

“We recommend the Comprehensive Strategies Group consider this information as the collective voice of Hawai’i County’s youth. Since the Comprehensive Strategies Initiative is directed at the juvenile justice system within Hawai’i County, the adult population of Hawai’i County needs to consider concerns of the youth and utilize the input to complete the strategic plan. Many adults have difficulty relating to youths and do not take the concerns and viewpoints seriously. Please use this report, along with continuing youth input to implement positive changes for all children in the community.” - Na Leo o Na Opio (The Voices of the Youth)

WORKGROUP Priority Recommendations:

1. Healing and strengthening families.

2. Continuing to improve the school system to prepare youth for their future.

3. Using the county’s natural, cultural, and historical resources to provide social and economic activities and opportunities for youth.

4. Promoting high moral standards and alternatives to substance abuse and violence.

5. Providing facilities and infrastructures for social and economic activities and opportunities for all of Hawai’i county.

The Youth Involvement workgroup consisted of 15 adults whose role was to support and facilitate a representative group of the youth of Hawai’i County in the strategic planning for juvenile justice. The workgroup began by inviting youth from all 18 public and private high schools on the island to a forum on May 19, 2001. At this forum, 41 students representing 12 high schools discussed, in three separate sessions, the problems they face as youth in the county of Hawai’i, the strengths of their individual communities, and their solutions to the seven factors they chose as being of greatest risk to themselves.

From this forum came the documents and eight major recommendations included in the Community Assessment Report (CAR). The compilation of results from the Halana Ka Mana’o Youth Summit and the 38 students’ Personal Reflections were further edited and clarified at another youth meeting on August 20, 2001. The Youth Involvement workgroup has decided to leave all the students’ raw data intact because we agree with the youth group (Nä Leo o Nä ‘Öpio) that their voice must be heard by everyone.

At the August 20, 2001 meeting, the students refined their thoughts and named themselves “Na Leo o Na ‘Opio: The Voices of the Youth” because they intend to be the voice of the young people of Hawai’i county. They are setting themselves up in every high school to carry out the work of the Comprehensive Strategy Action Plan. They plan to communicate via e-mail, newsletter, and the video conferencing equipment the prosecutor’s office is installing in most of the public high schools.

The students will be planning their next summit for spring 2002. At this summit, they will determine their projects and community work, based on the Comprehensive Strategy plan that is adopted by the County of Hawai’i in January/February 2002. The adult workgroup will continue to assist the youth to carry out the mission of youth involvement. The youth also wish to be part of a group that can advise the mayor on actions that involve and help youth of this county.

RESULTS, GAPS, and SOLUTIONS

The two documents that follow are the actual lists compiled and voted on by the youth at their two meetings. The narratives that follow their lists are also in their own words. The comments of the Youth Involvement workgroup are in italics.

Youth Summit

Halana Ka Mana’o, Hawai’i County’s Youth Summit, was held on May 19th, 2001. At the summit, the Youth Involvement Workgroup played host to a cross-section of 41 students from 12 of the island’s public and private schools. The summit focused on having Hawai’i County’s youth identify the greatest risk factors precipitating juvenile delinquency. In addition to the identification of the youth risk factors, youth delegates listed their districts’ strengths and weaknesses pertaining to youth activities. The day concluded with a presentation from each district addressing solutions to youth issues using their district’s individual resources. The results are listed here:

The youth identified Hawai’i County’s seven most pressing youth risk factors by identifying as many risk factors as they could think of, then voting for the three greatest risks. Each of the remaining factors was placed under these seven major risk factors.

On July 17, 2001, the adults from all the Comprehensive Strategy workgroups assessed the data collected and chose the four risk factors the county of Hawai’i would address in its five-year plan. The Youth Involvement workgroup was very pleased to note that the youth had already prioritized the risks they faced in almost the same order.

The youth concluded that family management or the lack of family management determined all other risk factors that exist for the youth in their families, schools, and communities. All other (6) risk factors they chose are a result of what happens in the family.

The youth have proposed strategies to address each of the seven risk factors they agreed on. They recommend that these strategies be implemented as part of the five-year Comprehensive Strategy plan.

The items listed by the youth under each of their seven risk factors correspond to the data-driven risk factors that the Comprehensive strategy plan will address.

1. Family Problems corresponds to all four risk factors, especially Family Management and Family Conflict (Risk factors 2 and 3).

2. Social Supports (Peer Pressure) corresponds to all four risk factors, especially Family Conflict and Early and Persistent Anti-Social Behavior (Risk factors 3 and 4).

3. Drugs and Alcohol corresponds to all four risk factors, especially Availability of Drugs (Risk factor #1).

4. Cultural Issues and Differences (Racism, prejudice, ethnic discrimination, bias, social status, gangs, stereotyping) corresponds especially to Family Management (Risk factor #2) because the youths’ perception of others have their foundation in family values and peer influence.

5. Lack of Activities leads to all four risk factors, especially Availability of Drugs and Family Management (Risk factors 1 and 2).

6. A Need for Morality corresponds to all four risk factors, especially Family Management (Risk factor #2).

7. Jobs Wanted leads to all four risk factors, especially Availability of Drugs and Family Conflict (Risk factors 1 and 3).

The additional problems the youth listed as existing in the school system and the youth justice system underscore the four risk factors in the infrastructure of this community. Their risk factors #5, 6, and 7 are major gaps in the system of care.

In addition, problems were identified in existing youth activities:

Personal Reflections
Halana Ka Mana’o Youth Summit

This document is a result of the Halana Ka Mana’o, Hawaii County's Youth Summit held on May 19, 2001 at the Royal Kona Resort. It contains data collected from surveys completed by youth delegates to the summit. The narratives from this document are an attempt by youth delegates to express their peers’ views on various local issues. The intent of this report is to enlighten readers about the current views expressed by Hawaii County youth.

Reflections on:

School
Police
Youth Activities
Community Recreation
The $1,000,000 Question

REFLECTIONS - SCHOOL

The youth perceive the school system as not being responsive enough to their need for skills to insure future success. Whether this is a fact or the youths’ perception of the system, changes need to be made in this gap area.

Narrative - Schools:

Schools should be appropriate for an individual’s needs. Students should have the opportunity to take classes, which will be helpful in their future ambitions. Sports should be expanded upon, possibly integrated into the curriculum (sports are a large part of people’s lives). New sports should be promoted: surfing and canoe paddling are very big sports that are not represented in high school.

Student leadership should be promoted to involve AS MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!!! Schools are not preparing students for life after school. Too much focus is put on educational curriculum, while more basic needs are being neglected. Guidance courses need to follow students throughout their school life, and counselors should have the ability to allow students to take courses they want (and will greatly benefit from later in life), as the current school curriculum is often not applicable to life experiences.

REFLECTIONS - POLICE

Comments:

• Because it’s far away, they feel weird going to the Police
• The community handles their own problems
• I believe no one in the community ever feels comfortable going to these stations
• There are only 13 police officers in Ka’u, the community knows all of the Officers and Firefighters and they don’t feel uncomfortable
• They are shy or scared to ask for help or report something
• They (Police) are intimidating and we don’t want to feel like we’re going to get into trouble
• Most (Police) are criminals where I live
• Police aren’t very friendly and they treat kids like they are all punks
• They (Youth) don’t like Police

Another gap area is the youths’ perception of the police. The Comprehensive strategy plan must address changes that will implement positive interaction instead of an adversarial relationship.

Narrative - Police:

Statistics show that 47.2 % of the youth are uncomfortable with the police. We feel intimidated by their presence. Police Officers are often identified with illegal activity, making us think badly of ourselves in their presence. In reality, police are supposed to be community resources, providing guidance to community youth. This view needs to be promoted to the youth and cooperation between youth and police needs to be encouraged.