Aug. 25 Commission meeting minutes Commission on Disproportionality in Youth Services
Minutes
August 25, 2008
Indiana State Office Building, Conference Room B
Chairs: Dean Michael Patchner; Angela Green
Members present:
Dean Michael Patchner
Ms. Angela Green
Ms. Pam McConey
Ms. Rhonda Allen
Mr. Peter Haughan
Ms. Erika Stallworth
Ms. Barbara Malone
Mr. James Garrett
Mr. Dallas Daniels
Mr. Gregg Ellis
Dr. Jim Kenney
Dr. Russ Skiba
Ms. Clara Anderson
Ms. Jennifer Darby
Ms. JauNae Hanger
Hon. Mary Beth Bonaventura
Ms. Renae Azziz
Sen. Jean Breaux
Mr. Adolfo Solis
Mr. Bill Glick
Members represented by proxy:
Ms. Rebecca Buhner (Mr. Kevin Moore)
Ms. Kelly Whitcomb (Mr. Ed Buss)
Members absent:
Ms. Nancy Jewell
Rep. Bill Crawford
Sen. Ron Alting
Rep. Sean Eberhart
Ms. Geneva Osawe
Ms. Cookie Purvis
Ms. Julie Hyndman
Mr. Roderick Wheeler
Others present:
Dr. Jackie Green
Ms. Charlene Hederick
Mr. Jamal Smith
Mr. Dave Rozzell
Mr. Mark Bryson
Ms. Phyllis J. Lewis
Ms. Felicia Boyd-Smith
Ms. Lisa Stocks
Mr. Jim Gregory
Ms. Karen Glaser
Ms. Emily Krauser
Ms. Cathy Graham
Rev. CL Day
Proceedings: Ms. Angela Green opened the meeting at 9:40 AM.
Item: Review of minutes from the previous Commission Meeting (July 28th, 2008)
Discussion:
Ms. Stallworth was counted present twice. IARCCA acronym needs to be spelled out.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Ms. Anderson
Approve minutes pending corrections.
Second: Dr. Skiba
Vote(s) Taken: Minutes were approved pending corrections.
Item: Preparation of Draft Report for Release prior to the August 27th Statewide Videoconference
Discussion:
Ms. Green thanked the Commissioners and Commission researchers for their work in preparing a first draft of the Commission final report. She noted that there is still work to be done and toward that end, today’s meeting will be a working meeting to move recommendations further along and obtain Commission approval for the purposes of release prior to the August 27th statewide videoconference. Dr. Green has received edits and comments from several Commissioners. Overarching recommendations will need to be approved by the Commission and individual sub-committee recommendations will need to be approved by the respective sub-committee. It was noted that there is a quorum of Commission members present.
Dr. Skiba expressed concern that all sub-committees may not have a quorum present today. It was agreed that sub-committee co-chairs can make determinations on minor changes in the absence of a quorum but if proposed changes are substantive the sub-committee co-chairs may defer those determinations until a quorum can be present.
Action(s) Taken: N/A
Vote(s) Taken: N/A
Item: Organization of Final Report
Discussion:
Dr. Green stressed that the Commission has an initial draft report at this time. The report includes background information, substantiating data regarding disproportionality, a series of overarching recommendations and individual sub-committee recommendations. What is missing is an integrated way to present the information and Dr. Green is working on this. Dr. Green is working to develop an integrated way to present the information, the acknowledgement section, the Appendices and graphics. Also, the final report will include a preface signed by the four legislative members of the Commission.
Dean Patchner asked for discussion regarding the number of recommendations included in the report at this time. Some Commissioner members have heard feedback that there are too many recommendations. Should the Commission reduce the number of recommendations, combine recommendations or prioritize them?
Ø Senator Breaux pointed out that next year is a budget year and legislators will look at the recommendations through the “budget lens.” She suggested presenting the recommendations in phases, recognizing that all are important but that they will need to be implemented incrementally. Another option would be to prioritize the recommendations according to cost effectiveness and impact.
Ø Mr. Garrett suggested that many legislators will not read a report of this length. He suggested identifying the highest 6- 12 recommendations in a “cliff notes” version of the report to be shared with the legislature.
Ø Ms. Hanger agreed with Senator Breaux’s suggestion of presenting recommendations in phases as well as Mr. Garret’s suggestion of putting them in a format that will be accessible to legislators. She cautioned however against reducing the full report; a broad spectrum of other organizations will want to use the report to support their own initiatives around reducing disproportionality. For example, the Indiana State Bar Association’s Juvenile Justice Mental Health Summit had issued a report which many defense attorneys then used in court to strengthen individual cases.
Ø Dr. Skiba agreed with Ms. Hanger. In recent conversation with members of the NAACP it became clear that this and other organizations will use the Commission’s report as a blueprint for action; a blueprint that in a sense has the “seal” of the governor’s office. Many organizations have been talking about disproportionality for years, and the Commission report can be a source of empowerment for them. While it is not realistic to expect that all the Commission recommendations can be implemented immediately, the full report should function as a long term plan for the state to use as it moves forward. Rather than looking to reduce the size of the report the Commission should use its time to focus on increasing the influence of the document. Toward that end Dr. Skiba suggested meeting with the legislative members of the Commission to talk about how the Commission can give this report “legs.” Dr. Skiba also suggested that the report include a strong Executive
Summary.
Ø Dr. Kenny suggested that the Commission could organize the recommendations into categories such as legislative vs. training issues or policy issues. In addition to the organization of the report, accountability will be the key to ensuring that the report makes an impact. Indiana’s child welfare system is county-driven. State and directives from the state are not always followed by individual counties. Without data there will be no way to know whether recommendations are being followed by counties even if they are implemented at a state level. Dr. Kenny agreed with the suggestion to identify priority recommendations for immediate implementation but keep the remaining recommendations for implementation at a later time.
Ø Mr. Haughan noted that the Commission was created by the legislature and they are paying for the report. The legislature asked the Commission to look at disproportionality in four areas of youth services, each of which has huge problems with disproportionality. Mr. Haughan suggested identifying the top ten recommendations for the legislature, recognizing that there are other recommendations that are addressed to the courts, public and private organizations, etc.
Ø Senator Breaux agreed that identifying the top ten legislative recommendations is a good idea but argued that the legislature should see all the other recommendations as well. She suggested that recommendations be separated by legislative vs. non-legislative issues, the latter including areas such as policy or training. This would allow the Commission to direct recommendations toward those non-legislative entities.
Ø Ms. Malone stated that she has had feedback that the report is much too lengthy. In her view, thirty recommendations are too many.
Ø Ms. Green noted that presently the report has 105 recommendations. Two of the sub-committees have significantly reduced their number of recommendations by collapsing and prioritizing them. There is a risk that if two sub-committees presenting a limited number of recommendations while two sub-committees have much longer lists there may be a perception that the latter two are more important. This needs to be taken into consideration whichever route the Commission takes in organizing the report.
Ø Mr. Daniels reminded the Commission that Representative Crawford, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, had recommended that the Commission not “hold back” on its recommendations. The Education sub-committee took this seriously as they developed their recommendations. Originally this sub-committee had over 100 recommendations and has reduced those to forty. Mr. Daniels recommended that the report include a strongly worded Executive Summary.
Ø Ms. Anderson noted that the Commission has created a groundswell of support across the state. When the report is done Commission members will continue to champion it in their respective areas. Ms. Anderson reminded the Commission that its audience is not only the legislature but also the governor’s office. The governor’s appointments include people who represent his Cabinet positions and the Commission needs to be conscious of those people as they will need to address recommendations within their own budgets. With regard to the number of recommendations, Ms. Anderson stated she believes that 105 recommendations are too many.
Ø Dr. Skiba agreed that the governor and the legislature are the Commission’s constituencies but argued that the people who are affected by disproportionality are also constituents. The Commission has heard from these people in public forums and from their advocates in stakeholder meetings. If we pare the recommendations down we risk losing those constituents that we have worked so hard to reach out to.
Ø Dr. Kenny suggested that:
Each sub-committee divide their recommendations into three categories: those that require legislative action, those that require training and those that fall into an “other” category.
Each sub-committee further break down the recommendations into those that should be implemented immediately and those that can be implemented later.
The Commission asked Dr. Green to organize the overarching recommendations.
Ø Dean Patchner concurred with Dr. Kenny’s suggestion and agreed that the Commission has a number of constituents including not only the governor’s office and the legislature but also the citizens affected and the organizations that serve them. Dean Patchner stated that the Commission has arrived at a number of recommendations all of which represent the Commission’s best work. He recommended that the development of a strong Executive Summary be added to Dr. Kenny’s motion and asked that the motion be seconded.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Dr. Kenny:
o Each sub-committee will divide their recommendations into three categories: those that require legislative action, those that require training and those that fall into an “other” category.
Each sub-committee will further break down the recommendations into those that should be implemented immediately and those that can be implemented later.
The Commission will allow Dr. Green to organize the overarching recommendations.
The final report will include a strong Executive Summary.
Second: Senator Breaux
Discussion: Ms. Anderson recommended that the Commission approve all overarching draft recommendations. Consensus was reached that the Commission approve these recommendations and determine the recommended timelines for each. This was added to the motion.
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Overarching Recommendations
Discussion:
Ms. Green presented that the overarching recommendations are those that “cross over” all of the four disciplines. These had been presented conceptually at the July Commission meeting and since then, Dr. Green and Ms. Hederick have further refined them. The task of the Commission at this meeting is to approve, modify or disapprove these draft recommendations for release prior to the August 27th statewide videoconference.
Dr. Green facilitated discussion leading to the approval of each overarching recommendation. During this discussion two overarching draft recommendations were collapsed into one. The summary below includes the agreed-upon combination of those two recommendations.
Following are the draft recommendations adopted by the Commission:
Item: Recommendation # 1
Discussion:
Discussion was held regarding the need to be clear about the authority, membership and focus of the overseeing body. The following recommendation was agreed on:
Recommendation # 1
Establish a cross-system cabinet level overseeing body to further develop, administer, and monitor the implementation of the recommendations made by the Indiana Commission on Disproportionality in Youth Services. This body is responsible for the ongoing review and evaluation of recommended programs, practices and procedures described in this report.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Ms. Anderson
Approve recommendation # 1 with the overseeing body as a Cabinet level entity with cross-disciplinary responsibility and membership.
Second: Mr. Daniels
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 2
Discussion: Slight wording changes were made to the recommendation.
Recommendation # 2
Implement effective proven prevention strategies that will reduce the involvement of youth of color in child welfare and juvenile justice systems and will ensure that educational and mental health needs are met in an appropriate and timely fashion.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Ms. Darby
Accept recommendation # 2 with wording changes.
Second: Ms. Anderson
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 3
Discussion:
It was recommended that the four disciplines be listed alphabetically to avoid the perception that they have been prioritized. Discussion was held regarding whether this recommendation should specifically reference “children of color” as opposed to all children. It was agreed that the recommendation should reference “children of color.”
Recommendation # 3
Develop, support and monitor early intervention processes that will allow for early and quick responses to address child welfare, education, juvenile justice, and mental health issues for youth of color.
Documentation
Actions (s) Taken: Motion: Ms. Anderson
Approve recommendation # 3 with the disciplines listed alphabetically.
Second: Ms. Darby
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 4
Discussion:
It was agreed that the recommendation should reflect the fact that there is no single risk assessment tool that can be applied to all four youth services disciplines. Discussion was held about the need to review existing tools for bias and the need to address the fact that such tools do not exist for each decision point in each child- serving system. It was agreed that the following recommendation will be released today but that further work is needed to finalize it.
Recommendation # 4
Review and create where necessary, risk/needs assessment tools used in each child serving system, and make recommendations for statewide use of standardized assessments in a format that supports cultural sensitivity, consistency, and objectivity in evaluation. These assessments should be utilized at each critical decision making point in work with youth and families of color.
Action(s) Taken: Consensus was reached that in the interest of time, the Commission will approve the release of this recommendation with the understanding that it will need additional work.
Vote(s) Taken: N/A
Item: Recommendation #5
Discussion:
This recommendation is a combination of the original draft recommendations # 5 and # 7. Wording changes were recommended and the following draft recommendation was accepted:
Recommendation #5
Support, implement and monitor the use of strength-based interventions as a preferred approach to engage and promote positive outcomes in working with youth and families of color and provide in-home services and community based wrap-around services to model and teach parenting skills, coping mechanisms and advocacy strategies for youth and families of color.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Senator Breaux
To approve recommendation # 5 as amended.
Second: Dr. Skiba
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 6
Discussion:
Discussion was held about the need to strengthen the recommendation by use of the words “require” and “ensure.” The second sentence was modified for clarity.
Recommendation # 6
Require mandatory ongoing cultural competency training for individuals working with children and families of color. Require monitoring of service delivery practices and outcomes to ensure that such training is implemented in policies and practice.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Senator Breaux
To approve recommendation # 6 as amended.
Second: Ms. Darby
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 7
Discussion:
Discussion was held about strengthening this recommendation by specifying the types of services to be provided. The following wording was agreed upon:
Recommendation # 7
Expand and support existing programs or create new ones that show positive outcomes for youth of color, their families and communities and demonstrate an impact on the disproportionate number of youth of color in effort to adequately respond to a growing population in need of additional, and more rapid, services, including the provision of in-home services and community based wrap around services, and utilizing strength based strategies in the delivery of services.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Dr. Skiba
To approve recommendation # 7 as amended.
Second: Ms. Anderson
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 8
Discussion:
Discussion was held about the purpose of this recommendation. Is the purpose to create an accountability system for each youth service system? It was clarified that the warehouse would collect aggregate and comparable data across systems, but that each service system would need to create its own system for compliance monitoring. The purpose of the warehouse is to provide a high level view of data around racial disproportionality across youth services systems.
Recommendation # 8
Create a central data warehouse to serve as a system for standardized, disaggregated, race-specific data collection, with benchmarks, rapid accessibility and accountability measures. This system should be designed to allow for quick, efficient, data retrieval and comparison across service systems and across geographic regions throughout the state.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Mr. Garrett
To approve recommendation # 8 as amended.
Second: Ms. Azziz
Vote Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation #9
Discussion:
Discussion was held about the difference between this recommendation and recommendation # 1. This recommendation is focused on collaboration among community agencies whereas recommendation # 1 is focused on state agency collaboration. Wording changes were recommended to provide clarity and the following recommendation was approved:
Recommendation # 9
Develop a collaborative structure to support additional linkages and relationships among community, faith-based and private/public organizations serving youth of color and to provide avenues for increased communication, record sharing and funding among these agencies.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Dr. Skiba
To approve recommendation # 9 as amended.
Second: Ms. Anderson
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 10
Discussion:
Minor wording changes were recommended. The following recommendation was agreed on:
Recommendation # 10
Develop a strategic plan to recruit and retain diverse (including bi-lingual) professionals in all child service systems to work with you and families of color.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Dr. Kenny
To accept recommendation # 10 as amended.
Second: Ms. Hanger
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was passed by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 11
Discussion:
Minor wording changes were recommended and the following recommendation was approved:
Recommendation #11
Appropriate sufficient funding to implement and sustain programs and initiatives that are presented in this report to reduce the level of disproportionality and disparities experienced by youth of color in Indiana.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Mr. Garrett
To accept recommendation # 11 as amended.
Second: Mr. Daniels
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was passed by voice vote.
Item: Amendment to recommendation # 2
Discussion:
Dr. Skiba suggested that “youth of color” language be added to recommendation # 2.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Ms. Darby
To add “youth of color” language to recommendation # 2
Second: Ms. Anderson
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Recommendation # 4
Discussion: Hon. Mary Beth Bonaventura suggested that Recommendation # 4 be approved as follows:
Review and create where necessary, risk/needs assessment tools used in each child serving system, and make recommendations for statewide use of standardized assessments in a format that supports cultural sensitivity, consistency, and objectivity in evaluation. These assessments should be utilized at each critical decision making point in work with youth and families of color.
Action(s) Taken:
Motion: Ms. Darby
Second: Ms. Anderson
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was approved by voice vote.
Item: Distribution of Draft Recommendations
Discussion:
Ms. Green noted that the draft recommendations are scheduled to be released today to all who attended Stakeholder meetings and Public Forums, for review prior to the statewide teleconference. The Commission approved all overarching draft recommendations for release but did not have time to approve the individual sub-committee draft recommendations.
Ms. Green noted that initial Commissioner input has been received and incorporated into these recommendations. Dr. Green stated that three recommendations had inadvertently been omitted from the draft report that had been distributed to Commissioners for comment. Those three recommendations have since been added to the draft report. Ms. Green asked for Commission approval to release the draft recommendations “as is”.
Ms. Darby noted that the draft report states that the Juvenile Justice sub-committee “struggled” with the number of points of access to the system. Ms. Darby expressed concern over the implication that the sub-committee “struggled” with that issue. Ms. Green pointed out that that sentence is in the body of the report which is not being released today.
Ms. Hanger expressed concern about the wording of one Juvenile Justice sub-committee recommendation. Ms. Green noted that changes such as this would require the Commission to break into small groups to refine and approve the sub-committee recommendations and that today’s meeting had run out of time.
Ms. Anderson expressed concern that although the body of the report needs some additional work, it does contain background and concepts that will be not be shared for comment if only the draft recommendations are released today.
Mr. Garrett asked about the recommendations that had been omitted from the draft released to Commissioners. All were Education sub-committee recommendations and they have since been inserted.
Action(s) Taken: Motion: Dr. Kenny
To release the draft overarching recommendations and individual sub-committee recommendations including those recommendations that had been previously omitted.
Second: (per tape, no second was asked for or made)
Vote(s) Taken: Motion was passed by voice vote.
Item: Prioritization of Recommendations
Discussion:
The Commission had voted to prioritize recommendations in terms of those that need immediate attention vs. those that can be implemented over time as well as those that require legislative action, training, or “other”. Dean Patchner suggested that the Commission operationalize “immediate” actions as those that should take place within the coming two year legislative period. Because the Commission did not have time for sub-committees to meet during this meeting, Dean Patchner recommended that the sub-committees meet separately to prioritize their individual recommendations and assign them to legislative action, training, or “other”. Ms. Green stated that she will develop instructions on how to do this and email those to co-chairs, and also update the Commission timeline to reflect decisions made at today’s meeting.
Action(s) Taken: N/A
Second: N/A
Vote(s) Taken: N/A
Item: Public Comment
Discussion:
Rev. CL Day asked whether all recommendations- overarching and specific to sub-committees- will be sanctioned by the Commission. Dean Patchner responded that although the draft recommendations will be released now for input at the statewide videoconference, the feedback received through that process will lead to further revision of the recommendations.
Action(s) Taken: N/A
Second: N/A
Vote(s) Taken: N/A
Item: Statewide Videoconference
Discussion:
Ms. Anderson stated that the Stakeholder sub-committee has prepared a packet of information for the conveners at each videoconference site and asked those people to stay for a brief meeting directly following the Commission meeting. The Stakeholder sub-committee has created a Power Point presentation for the statewide conference and that will be distributed to the conveners. Ms. Anderson reviewed the expectation that Commissioners will be prepared to stay for up to an hour after the videoconference to take comments that were not able to be telecast due to time constraints.
Action(s) Taken: N/A
Second: N/A
Vote(s) Taken: N/A
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Margie Lee-Szymanski
Sequoia Consulting Group
| 
