INTRODUCTION
The Resource
Assessment Team (RAT) was responsible for collecting information
about existing prevention and graduated sanction programs that were
related to the four Priority risk factors. The RAT used several
existing databases, which helped to identify known programs in the
community. In addition, published resource catalogs were used in
identifying the various resources in Hawaii County. Special thanks
to the Family Court of the Third Circuit, Casey Family Programs,
for sharing their resource lists with the team.
The team identified
114 programs or sanctions within the County of Hawaii, which address
the four priority risk factors. A telephone survey was then conducted
of these resources to determine geographic and financial accessibility
along with adequacy to meet consumer demand for services. The goal
is to illustrate the location of resources, financially accessibility
by families with limited income, and if these services exists in
adequate amounts. The team then identified what part of the prevention
/ graduated sanctions continuum each program addressed, the ages
they serviced, and if transportation was available through the program.
The following are the criteria for each field of information represented
in the program matrix.
Geographic
Accessibility: The team began by dividing the island
into north, south, east, and west regions. Next, each organization
was asked to define their area of service according to figure 1.
The team wanted to identify what regions a program served by either
having an office located there or through an outreach program that
met consumer demand in the area. Simply accepting clients from all
parts of the island cannot be a basis for stating the program served
an island wide community. We want to identify areas where demands
for services are greater than what is currently available. The issue
of transportation to and from the program is dealt in a later part
of the survey.
Financial
Accessibility: To determine financial accessibility,
the team asked if a fee to the individual accessing that service
(private insurance coverage was considered a fee) was required.
If a consumer fee was a prerequisite of service, then the program
was determined to be not accessible to all potential consumers.
However, if individuals were serviced based on a referral from the
Family Court or a State / County office that would absorb the costs
then service was accessible. In addition, if accommodations such
as fee waivers and sliding fee scales or other adjustments were
used to increase access, the program was considered financially
accessible.
Adequacy:
In assessing if current resources existed in adequate amounts to
meet consumer demand, the group asked if a program turned away potential
clients or had a waiting list due to issues relating to capacity.
If any of these conditions existed for a program, than the amount
of service available was determined to be inadequate. This measure
was not a gauge of a program’s ability to administer services.
Rather the purpose is to represent any shortages in the services
currently available.
Ages
Served: The groupings in this category were taken from
examples of other counties that have completed the Comprehensive
Strategy Planning Process. The exception is the “parent”
category, which was included to define programs aimed at improving
parenting skills or alleviating conflict between parents.
Transportation:
the relatively large size of Hawaii County (roughly twice the landmass
of the other 3 counties in the State combined) and lack of mass
transit options available in the community was the basis for identifying
programs that offered transport alternatives to clientele.
PREVENTION
/ GRADUATED SANCTIONS CONTINUUM
With guidance
from OJJDP, the resource workgroup then developed a framework to
identify and categorize programs addressing the 4 priority risk
factors into a continuum of services. The framework consists of
2 sections, a prevention component and a graduated sanctions segment.
The Prevention side of this continuum contains pro-social activities
that provide positive recreational options along with education
programs that raise awareness about the four priority risk factors.
In addition early intervention services for “at risk”
youth and their families are also considered prevention options.
The goal is
to offset risk factors in the community, family, and schools through
education and positive activities that promote the physical, mental,
and social development of all youth. Early intervention services
in this section are designed to step in before the onset of problem
behaviors and prevent the youth’s involvement in the Juvenile
Justice System. The graduated sanctions part of the continuum combines
accountability and sanctions with increasingly intensive treatment,
residential, secure, and rehabilitation services. The aim is to
develop a wide range of sanctions to fit the varying degrees and
types of criminal offenses with the focus of modifying the youth’s
problem behavior and prevent further penetration into the System.
PREVENTION
Prevention:
This category includes pro-social activities and organized sports
that provide healthy and positive recreational opportunities that
are meant to replace negative behavior. In addition, Programs focused
on educating youth, their families, and the public about community,
family, school and peer risk factors and how they contribute to
problem behaviors such as substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy,
school dropout, violence, and substance abuse. The goal is promote
positive social, physical, and mental development of all youth.
Early
Intervention: These programs are aimed at youth who have
had contact with the Family Court system as non-offenders (neglected,
abused, and dependent) or as status offenders (runaways, truants,
alcohol offenders, and incorrigibles) that are not presently sanctioned
under the Juvenile Justice system. These youth are at high risk
for problem behaviors due to their exposure to community, family,
school, and peer risk factors. With respect to risk factors 2 and
3, programming intended to promote parenting skills and alleviate
conflict in the home were included in this category with the understanding
that some services may be used as options on the graduated sanctions
side of the continuum.
GRADUATED
SANCTIONS
Immediate
Intervention: Immediate services are directed at youth
who are first–time delinquent offenders who are primarily misdemeanor
and non-violent offenders (however in some instances, some violent
offenders are eligible for these services based on an Individual
Education Plan / 504 School Team’s and or Family Court’s
discretion). Non-serious repeat offenders (Generally misdemeanor
offenses) may also be eligible for services in this category (under
Family Court discretion). These youth are at risk of committing
more serious crime or developing into chronic offenders.
Intermediate
Intervention: Services aimed at offenders who are inappropriate
for immediate intervention who have committed serious offenses that
may include some violent offenders (under the discretion of Family
Court). Furthermore, individuals who do not respond successfully
to immediate intervention as evidence of re-offending (repeat property
offenders or drug involved individuals) may be eligible for these
services.
Out
of Home Placements: Programs that provide alternative
residential services to a range of consumers from children exposed
to domestic abuse to youth offenders with drug or mental health
needs. These services are not meant to place youth into secure conditions
but rather offer treatment or a safe environment in a setting that
provides for the individual’s mental, physical or social behavioral
needs.
Secure
Care: Those programs that provide structured treatment
in a secure environment. These services are aimed at rehabilitating
the youth while insuring public safety. The objective is for the
individual to eventually reintegrate back into the community and
function without re-offending.
After
Care: Services are directed at youth that are discharged
from a secure facility for reintegration back into the community.
These programs are aimed at monitoring the activities of parolees
and providing social support and treatment services. Programming
from other sections of the continuum may be employed to facilitate
the transition from a secure environment into the community.
The survey assisted
in identifying gaps in service and program coverage. Due to the
discontinuity of the resource workgroup through the CS planning
process, the assessment performed was not as comprehensive as recommended
by the OJJDP planning framework. The team was not able to locate
all of the programs and organizations that provide positive activities
such as organized sports and other recreation opportunities. However,
the assessment completed is a good point to regroup and do a more
extensive assessment of the resources in Hawaii County. The team
has made recommendations contained at the end of this report to
more clearly define the categories listed and plans on continuing
the survey process into the implementation stage of the Plan. A
more comprehensive assessment should be completed by the end of
2002.
PROGRAMS
The various
programs were reviewed, evaluated, and sorted into the four categories
according to the four prioritized risk factors the program addressed.
The services were then sorted with respect to what part of the prevention/graduated
sanctions continuum the program fit (prevention, intervention, immediate,
etc). This was primarily done to ease identification of the strengths
and gaps in the prevention/graduated sanctions continuum of services.
Some resources address multiple risk factors and were therefore
listed in more than 1 risk factor category.
In addition
to using the assessment matrix to identify gaps along the sanctions
continuum, the RAT also used first hand knowledge of the current
service environment in Hawaii County to make recommendations and
identify the key issues relating to the risk factors and the current
system.
PREVENTION / GRADUATED
SANCTIONS MATRIX
GAPS
IN SERVICE
| 1. |
Not
having an on-island in-patient substance abuse treatment facility
(both for male and female clients). This treatment center would
provide gender specific services that dealt with the core issues
leading to drug use. |
| 2. |
Gap
in a secure environment for status offenders or repeat runaways
who do not commit any other crimes. There are no programs, both
for CPS and Family Court that treat the individual or the issues
causing them to run. |
| 3. |
Mandate
by the State to require driver education for all 16-18 year olds
without having sufficient classes in the schools to meet the demand.
The result is only those youths that have the money to pay to
attend the program will be able to drive. This factor along with
current transportation issues on the island combine to make it
difficult for young people to participate in activities such as
part-time work, school related sports, or attending college. |
| 4. |
Insufficient
transportation system to service youth to get them to the key
areas of the island to beaches, movies, activity centers, etc.
This would relate to the youth resenting a parent for not being
able to provide transportation. |
| 5. |
Need
for more activities for the intermediate school age kids. |
| 6. |
Need
for more youth centers and clubs centered on clusters of communities
away from the main population hubs of Waimea, Kailua, Hilo and
Naalehu. |
| 7. |
Need
for more mentoring programs in the Kona area, both the peer and
adult –to-peer types. |
| 8. |
Develop
a standard evaluation of both content and implementation of programs
to see how effective it is, and how or what we need to improve
it. Ask the kids how effective the programs are. This is for both
programs in the community and for curriculum courses held in the
Department of Education. Need to evaluate the need and effectiveness
of the program. |
| 9. |
Expand
current programs to have more variety for the different ages of
both parent and child. |
| 10. |
Insufficient
parenting classes available to Family Court. |
| 11. |
Need
for more anti-drug campaigns. |
| 12. |
Look
at what type of training that pre-school teachers have in the
area of identifying risk #4. If none, then we will need to develop
and integrate requirements into Early Childhood Education Programs
at the college level. This should also include elementary educators.
Options for referral and for linkages to community service providers
need to be developed. |
OUTREACH,
COMMUNICATION & MEDIA
INTRODUCTION
The Hawaii County
Outreach, Communication & Media Workgroup is comprised of representatives
from a variety of public and private sector organizations –
all of whom have a stake in communicating and networking effectively
the results of the Comprehensive Strategy planning process. Key
representation comes from the Office of the Mayor, Dept. of Education,
Dept. of Human Services, Hawaii Island United Way, Hawaii Police
Dept., Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce, Office of the Prosecuting
Attorney, Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Salvation Army, and Na Leo ‘O
Hawaii public access TV.
The first step
was to help formulate and embrace a vision Statement for the Comprehensive
Strategy group: “Every youth in Hawaii will be a responsible,
healthy and caring community member.” Everything that we say
and do during the planning and delivery processes will relate back
to fulfilling this vision.
Hawaii County
has many troubling statistics as it relates to youth, but the Comprehensive
Strategy group was able to agree on four priority risk factors:
1) availability
of drugs;
2) family management problems;
3) family conflict; and
4) early and persistent anti-social behavior.
It is now the
Outreach and Media workgroup’s primary responsibility to facilitate
the exchange of ideas and information internally among the various
workgroups so that the best plan possible can be developed. Simultaneously,
the team is developing ways to introduce the planning process and
pending plan to the community. Here are some of the tactics we will
be using:
| * |
The
production and distribution of a monthly newsletter intended for
internal use to keep planning participants informed about individual
workgroup activities and overall Comprehensive Strategy activities
and timelines. |
| * |
The
development and implementation of a logo and name contest for
the Comprehensive Strategy planning group among youth throughout
Hawaii County. In October, we will launch a call for entries throughout
County public and private schools. This will raise awareness about
the program and also give youth the opportunity to share their
ideas and creativity. |
| * |
The
production of a “talking points” brochure for use internally
among Comprehensive Planning Strategy participants, and another
version for use in educating the community about the program.
The public version will also be a valuable tool for those from
the planning group who make public presentations. |
| * |
The
selection of the best and most appropriate web-sites for obtaining
information about the efforts, and ways that the community can
become involved. |
| * |
The
development of a media plan that provides a variety of mediums
for disseminating information about the planning process, the
plant itself, and ways for the community to get involved. This
will include the production of radio PSAs, public access TV spots
and programming, and both news releases and advertisements intended
for use in island newspapers. |
| * |
The
involvement of youth in the workgroup projects. This will be achieved
with the help of the Youth Workgroup and other participating agencies. |
Another important
role of the Outreach, Communication and Media Workgroup will be
to “reach out” to other organizations in the community
so that we can integrate ideas and programs effectively. Hawaii
Island United Way, which provides annual funding to 34 non-profit
human service organizations, will be a key partner in the workgroup’s
“outreach” efforts. With its own funding priority of “Strengthening
Families and Nurturing Children,” United Way can help us network
with established agencies that will be able to help in the implementation
of the plan.
Because of the
size of Hawaii County community – Hawaii County includes the
entire island of over 4,000 square miles – effectively communicating
with multiple ethnic and income groups will be a challenge. The
means we develop will need to be modeled to fit each area’s
needs, and we will have to be patient and flexible in the delivery
process. If we all keep focused on the vision Statement, we believe
we can make a difference and help mobilize the entire community
to assume responsibility for “our” children.
LEGISLATIVE,
POLICY & SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
The role of
the Legislative, Policy & Systems (LPS) Workgroup is to:
| 1. |
Review
and recommend changes to State and local laws and policies related
to all stages along the Comprehensive Strategies continuum; |
| 2. |
Assess
and make recommendations related to information sharing and management
information systems among relevant agencies and organizations;
and |
| 3. |
Review
and make recommendations regarding case management functions currently
in place. |
To accomplish
these objectives, input was sought from the Data Collection, Resource
Assessment, Objective Decision-making, and Youth Workgroups. These
Workgroups were asked to identify the legislative, policy, and systems
issues relating to at-risk-youth, that they had uncovered during
the course of their research and discussions. Their insights were
compiled into a list that was organized according to the following
operational categories: Education; Law Enforcement; Health and Human
services; Juvenile Justice System; and Community Resource Systems.
The LPS Workgroup
further discerned whether issues affected legislative, policy, or
systems issues and labeled them accordingly. These terms were defined
as follows:
| - |
Legislative
issues pertain to laws, ordinances or rules; |
| - |
Policy
issues pertain to the internal process of a single agency, department,
or organization; and |
| - |
Systems
issues pertain to processes and practices that involve multiple
agencies, departments, or organizations. |
The LPS Workgroup
also contributed a partial list of Hawaii State laws that relate
to youth to the growing body of information assembled by the Comprehensive
Strategies workgroups for inclusion in the Community Assessment
Report. The complete list of issues, which cites the origin of the
issue/recommendation, is attached as Appendix A and the list of
Hawaii State Laws as Appendix B, to the report.
This body of
information was reviewed, discussed, and amended at a LPS Workgroup
meeting on August 31, 2001. After discussion, Workgroup participants
identified the issues felt to be priorities. The criteria for “priority
issues” included:
| - |
Relationship
to priority risk factors: availability of drugs; family management
problems; family conflict; and early and persistent anti-social
behavior; |
| - |
Relationship
to goal of building a seamless continuum of services and sanctions,
from prevention programming to the development of graduated sanctions; |
| - |
Realistic
potential of attaining positive impact given resources available;
and |
| - |
Significant
widespread benefit possible from targeting particular issue. |
PRIORITY
LEGISLATIVE, POLICY, AND SYSTEMS ISSUES
Educational
System
Issues relating
to this system were not included in the present list of suggested
priorities.
Law
Enforcement System
Issues relating
to this system were not included in the present list of suggested
priorities.
Health
& Human Services Systems
Policy
Issues:
| Issue: |
The
July 2001 issue of the Office of Justice Programs’ “Juvenile
Justice Bulletin,” notes that a substantial body of research
has established a connection between childhood abuse and neglect
and delinquency. To assist in evaluating the adequacy of the response
to this vulnerable group of children, data should be obtained
that measures State agency practices and polices relating to abused
and neglected children. This should include but not be limited
to: length of time children spend in the “system;” number
of transfers between foster parents per child; number of children
assigned to caseworkers; and correlation between involvement in
Hawaii’s protective services system and later delinquency.
(Data) |
| Recommendation: |
Explore
how to obtain data. Ascertain whether State Legislative Auditor’s
Office has examined this issue. If not, consider asking for
assistance. Include best practices/ standards as a gauge for
comparison.
Research
whether the child protective services strategy known as Structured
Decision Making (described in July 2001 “Juvenile Justice
Bulletin” or other emerging best practices might be applied
to Hawaii’s child protective services system. |
Systems
Issues:
| Issue: |
Child
Welfare Cases: 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.
(Obj. Dec.) |
| Recommendation: |
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.
(Obj. Dec.) |
|
| Issue: |
Drug
use and addiction among youth as well as their parents is a major
problem in Hawaii County. (Youth) |
| Recommendations: |
Hawaii County
needs to address the whole issue from the standpoint of law
enforcement, prevention, treatment,
aftercare, drug availability, and criminal prosecution, etc.
(Youth)
Prevention
efforts should be focused on children who are in the “middle-school”
age group, such as those in the 6th through 10th grades. (Leg.)
Recreational
activities for young people, offer youth a positive alternative
to drug use. Groups should be encouraged to start new prevention
oriented activities, particularly for youth in the 6th through
the 10th grades. Existing organizations, such as the YMCA, churches,
sports organizations, etc., already provide such activities.
We need to support these organizations financially in the form
of providing needed resources such as building more fields for
sports, having public buildings that would be suitable for activities
such as concerts, dances, plays, etc. (Youth/Leg.)
Recommendations
from: “Substance Abuse – The Nations’ Number
One Health Problem” Update Feb. 2001. Prepared by the Shneider
Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University.
| 1. |
Increasing
tobacco and alcohol taxes in Hawaii County may reduce the
use. Can a County tax be levied on tobacco and alcohol?
Could the tax fund be used to address reduction of use and/or
treatment with the youth? Notation, a 10 percent increase
is likely to reduce the teenage smoking by 7%. Besides the
discouragement factor, funds might be generate to address
program needs. More education programs to discourage underage
smoking and more should be spent on educating youth and
adults about the dangers of drugs. |
| 2. |
Develop
public awareness campaigns to increase the knowledge and
change community attitudes towards alcohol, tobacco and
drugs. The media usage by tobacco and alcohol industries
to promote their products has increased. The tobacco industry
has spent $6 billion in 1998, and the alcohol industry $1
billion in 1997. While we may not affect not a reduction
on advertising this County can do its own to promote anti
alcohol, tobacco and drug media education. |
| 3. |
Basically
there are two strategies to reducing illegal drugs: one
is to reduce the supply and the other the demand. Law enforcement
attempts to reduce the supply, the reduction of demand may
be accomplished through prevention, early intervention and
treatment services. More programs should be developed for
demand reduction. |
| 4. |
Develop
youth programs, such as peer counseling and gang prevention.
Life skills training on communication, problem solving and
stress management might assist in addressing some of the
motivators for drug usage. |
| 5. |
Promote
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA)
programs in the schools that address a better understanding
of the negative consequences of drug use. |
| 6. |
Use
the Franklin Reality Model of cognitive restructuring for
student skills development and drug choice intervention. |
| 7. |
Utilize
MADD and SADD more in respective community environments
such as the schools and the community. Media campaigning
may be part of this effort. |
| 8. |
More
enforcement against underage purchases of tobacco and alcohol
and/or recognition to businesses for their effort to maintain
the enforcement. |
| 9. |
Revocation
of driver’s license after the second DUI conviction.
No reinStatement of the license. Provide community education
on the impact of transportation issues. |
| 10. |
Stronger
regulations to reduce teenage access to alcohol. Adults
who illegally give alcohol to minors should be penalized. |
|
|
| Issue: |
The
data revealed that when compared to the rest of the State, a disproportionate
numbers of Hawaii County families live in poverty. Data which
measures relational links between factors such as: income; number
of parents in household; domestic violence; child abuse; availability
of drugs and alcohol; and school performance will facilitate the
development of effective community responses. (Data) |
| Recommendation: |
Seek
data. |
Juvenile
Justice Systems
Legislative
Issues:
| Issue: |
Laws
and policies that protect the privacy of juveniles often impair
the necessary exchange of information between agencies and organizations
that are striving to serve the same child. This amounts to multiple
systems that are not effectively interfacing with each other.
(Legislative) |
| Recommendation: |
Research
the problem and assess whether changes in legislation and policy
can be made to facilitate the exchange of necessary information
without compromising the rights of children. (Legislative) |
|
| Issue: |
Laws
and policies that protect the privacy of juveniles often impair
the necessary exchange of information between agencies involved
in the adjudicative process and agencies and organizations that
are striving to create more opportunities for youth to perform
restitution or meaningful community service that relates to the
crime committed. (Obj. Dec./Legislative) |
| Recommendation: |
The
victim piece needs to be strengthened by looking at current legislation
relating to confidentiality and liability laws. (Obj. Dec.) |
Systems
Issues:
| Issue: |
When
Hawaii County youth are sent to Oahu’s detention facility
or the HYCF, Hale Ho’omalu, they are isolated from family
supports and supports and programs established in their communities
of origin. For example, youth who are affected by the Felix Decree
are separated from their caseworkers, medications, etc. This practice
also results in additional costs to transport staff from island
to island.
(Obj. Dec./Leg.) |
| Recommendation: |
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.
(Obj. Dec.)
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. (Obj. Dec.)
Video conferencing/telecommunication
capacity for certain hearings for youth in detention home may
also represent substantial savings for the system. (Obj. Dec.)
A cost benefit
analysis should be done regarding the efficacy of building appropriate
on-island facilities. (Leg.) |
|
| Issue: |
There
is a need for more programs/services that address the underlying
causes of status offenses such as truancy and running away. The
bulk of these cases involve runaways. Existing programs respond
to the negative behavior without attempting to alleviate the underlying
causes of the behavior. (Resource/Leg.) |
| Recommendation: |
Do
assessment. |
|
| Issue: |
Youth who
are multi-agency involved, such as a probationer having legal
status with Child Welfare Services and receiving high end mental
health services from the Department of Health’s Family
Guidance Center may have several social workers involved who
are driving their own treatment plans. While parties participate
in coordinated service planning it is primarily mental health
directed.
Attempts
to work together are made difficult by the facts that treatment
funds are appropriated by department rather than by child and
one deputy attorney general is assigned to represent all or
almost all of the departments involved, despite sometimes conflicting
positions.
The Felix
case exacerbates this situation and creates an immediacy to
the need to address it. (Obj. Dec./Leg.) |
| Recommendation: |
An integrated
model of care is needed. (Obj. Dec.)
A system-wide
assessment instrument should be used at the first contact with
juvenile justice system. (Obj. Dec.)
A pot of
treatment funds should be allocated per child, rather than by
Department.
Additional
legal staff should be made available to assist the various Big
Island Departments who serve children at-risk. |
|
| Issue: |
Re. Court
reviews and motions to revoke probation: The options for the
court are limited to the availability of community resources.
There is a need for more intermediate sanction programs and
facilities. Youth may be institutionalized for the purpose of
accessing their array of
services.
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. (Obj. Dec.) |
| Recommendation: |
There needs
to be more opportunities for youth to earn restitution or perform
meaningful community service that has a relation to the crime
committed.
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. (Obj. Dec.) |
COMMUNITY
RESOURCE SYSTEMS
Systems Issues:
| Issue: |
Viable transportation
for Hawaii County youth is needed. This transportation should
enable youth to move to and from key destinations of interest,
including but not limited to, beaches, movies, recreation centers,
and employment. (Resource)
State law
mandates that all 16-18 year olds must attend a driver’s
education course prior to obtaining their driver’s license.
High Schools in Hawaii County lack sufficient driver’s
education classes to meet the demand. Consequently, access to
a driver’s license is reduced for those who cannot afford
private classes. (Resource) |
| Recommendation: |
? |
|
| Issue: |
The
scope and nature of available services for youth in Hawaii County
is constantly changing. However, it is critical for decision-makers
to have an ongoing and current knowledge of available resources
and services. (Resource) |
| Recommendation: |
Identify
an agency or organization that will undertake to compile and maintain
a County-wide registry, which lists all programs/agencies/organizations
that provide services for Hawaii County youth. An example of such
a County-wide registry, for Hawaii County’s senior population,
is the Partners-in-Eldercare Directory. (Resource) |
|
| Issue: |
How effective
are current community programs in addressing the risk factors?
How do we
establish that preventive measures are effective? What degree
of “reduction” is envisioned? After consider, the
degree of reduction achieved, how cost-effective are the programs?
What criteria
are used to determine effectiveness? Should a community criteria
of effectiveness be established versus allowing programs to
determine their own measures of effectiveness?
What Really
Works? There is a body of meta-analysis (combining of different
research studies to formulate an overall result of effectiveness)
that has given rise to information about effective programs.
Do we set policies about program development based on research
effect program? (Resource) |
| Recommendation: |
Explore
possibility of obtaining help from the State Legislative Auditor
or Legislative Reference Bureau regarding these issues. |
|
| Issue: |
On
a macro level, how can we assure, on an ongoing basis, that the
overall system response to youth at-risk is functioning in an
optimal manner? |
| Recommendation: |
Explore
possibility of obtaining help from the State Legislative Auditor
or Legislative Reference Bureau regarding these issues. |
OBSERVATIONS
As a result
of the research and analysis, the Legislative, Policy, and Systems
Workgroup offers the following observations:
| 1. |
The vast
majority of issues raised by the other Workgroups related to
systems issues. Of the fourteen total issues identified as priorities
by the Workgroup, eleven related to systems issues.
Overall,
priority issues cited related to the following concerns:
| - |
The
need to maintain and assure the availability of information
and data, both relating to aggregate trends and relating
to specific individuals; |
| - |
The
need for agencies, organizations, families, and the community
to work together to address complex issues such as drug
use, poverty, limited public transportation, and a lack
of positive recreational options; |
| - |
The
need for greater and more effective coordination and communication
among multiple agencies serving a single child at-risk; |
| - |
Gaps
in the overall system of care, including, a need for more
programs that address underlying causes of status offenses
and a need for more intermediate sanctions; and |
| - |
The
need to develop means to measure the effectiveness of individual
agencies and programs as well as the effectiveness of the
overall system of all agencies and programs that serve the
needs of at-risk youth. |
|
| 2. |
As a result
of the significant prevalence of systems related issues, at
the August 31, 2001 meeting, Workgroup participants recommended
focusing on the underlying systems challenges in order to improve
services to youth. Because so many systems issues relate to
a need for greater communication and coordination, the following
broad strategy was suggested:
| a. |
Gather
key persons and agencies; |
| b. |
Develop
a common vision of an appropriate outcome or solution; |
| c. |
Educate
all partners regarding the function of the agencies involved
to ascertain areas of responsibility, overlaps, and gaps; |
| d. |
Build
trust; and |
| e. |
Use
laws and policies as tools to achieve outcomes rather than
as outcomes in and of themselves. |
|
| 3. |
The Office
of Youth Services has perhaps, the broadest statutory mandates
regarding youth-at-risk. (Chapter 352D, HRS). A comprehensive
mandate is also apparent in laws pertaining to the Department
of the Attorney General, which however, assign it mandates that
relate specifically to the juvenile justice system. (Sec. 28-10.5,
HRS) State Law charges other major departments with broad responsibilities
regarding specific areas, such as education, health, human services,
and the court system, i.e. the Family Court.
It is of
interest that the systems problems cited largely relate to the
interface between the work of the major departments, i.e DOE,
DOH, DHS, and the Judiciary. The Office of Youth Services statute,
which articulates to some degree, a strategy for promoting coordination
among the work of the major departments should be revisited. |
| 4. |
A
review of the information provided by the other Workgroups also
revealed a need to develop means to measure the effectiveness
of individual agencies and programs that serve youth at-risk.
This need to measure effectiveness applies as well to the overall
system of all agencies and programs that serve the needs of at-risk
youth in the community. In many cases, it is simply not clear
whether individual programs, as well as the larger system, are
accomplishing the outcomes desired by the community. |
| 5. |
We
were able to resolve a number of “issues” simply through
discussing them with knowledgeable personnel who were interested
in and committed to improving the system. This was particularly
true regarding Educational System issues. In the course of discussion,
key personnel were able to provide information that either led
to a resolution of the question or informed us that work on a
solution was already underway. |
| 6. |
It
is evident that many Comprehensive Strategy participants have
invested countless hours of time in this project because they
feel that it is worthwhile work that will benefit the youth in
the community. However, in order to maintain commitment and interest
among Comprehensive Strategies participants, it was suggested
that the project’s vision be revisited at the next workshop. |
This discussion
should result in a re-energized overall picture of what Comprehensive
Strategies participants are striving to achieve. Further this vision
should be broken down into measurable outcomes, accompanied by timelines
from beginning to end, and workgroup assignments that are understood
by participants. The understanding and agreement that could result
from such a dialogue would assist participants to measure their
progress, facilitate their ownership in the effort, and reinforce
the sense that the participation is accomplishing a useful end.
|
