1 / 30

VG Young 61st Annual School for County Commissioners Courts

VG Young 61st Annual School for County Commissioners Courts. College Station, Texas. Lou Serrano, Deputy Executive Director for Probation Services February 19, 2019. Overview. Probation Services - Funding Texas Model & Legislative Recommendations Local Partnership Questions.

osman
Télécharger la présentation

VG Young 61st Annual School for County Commissioners Courts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VG Young 61st Annual School for County Commissioners Courts College Station, Texas Lou Serrano, Deputy Executive Director for Probation Services February 19, 2019

  2. Overview • Probation Services - Funding • Texas Model & Legislative Recommendations • Local Partnership • Questions

  3. PROBATION SERVICES

  4. Probation Services Probation Services Division Deputy Executive Director of Probation Services Lou Serrano Executive Assistant Elizabeth Alamo Director of Probation Services Amy Miller Interstate Compact JJAEP Services Regionalization Title IV-E and Medicaid Programs County Grants Lead JJAEP Performance Accountability Specialist Marie Welsch, PH.D Administrator of Interstate Compact on Juveniles Daryl Liedecke County Grants Program Administrator Jim Wilson Regionalization Program Coordinator Ashley Kintzer Title IV-E and Medicaid Programs Manager Denise Askea JJAEP Performance Accountability Specialist Eric Herring Regional County Program Administrator (South, Southeast) Deborah Crawford County Grants Fiscal Monitor Paul Alamo Probation Coordinator Richard Mann Title IV-E Accountant Gloria Reed County Grants Fiscal Administrator Tonya Gonzalez Probation Coordinator David Hensley Regional County Program Administrator (Panhandle, West, Central) Mark Williams Title IV-E Program Specialist Lynn Jackson Medicaid Liaison Program Specialist Judy McReynolds Regional County Program Administrator (North, Northeast) Ryan Bristow Community Mental Health Program Administrator Vacant

  5. REGIONAL MAP

  6. Probation Funding FY18-19 Appropriation: $318.0 mil • Key activities • Provide state grants to local probation departments (about 25% of total probation funds statewide; remainder is from local sources) • Administer all grant programs and provide technical assistance • Coordinate regional planning under SB1630

  7. Grants Continuum of Services P&I Demonstration Project Regional Diversion Alternatives SNDP DSA Not in the System TJJD Commitment P&I School Attendance Improvement Regional Initiatives Regional Service Programs Border Children’s Justice Project Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program State Aid Commitment Reduction Program Mental Health Services Supplemental & Emergent Funds

  8. Important to County Partners • Regionalization – SB1630; Divert youth from TJJD • Waiver of Independent Audit requirements for departments receiving less than $750,000.00 in state funding – freeing up funds for programs and services to youth • Departments have the ability to negotiate their best rates for residential care with no limitations on use of state funding • Within the next few months all departments will have access to a validated risk and needs assessment (Noble/PACT) • Commercial Sexual Exploitation Screening Instrument (CSE-IT) – providing departments with the ability to better identify these youth • Regional Supplemental & Emergent Needs Funding • Savings at State Institutions – benefit to probation funding

  9. Texas Model & LAR

  10. Implement the Texas Model across the state TJJD will need to provide beds for youth with the highest needs and risk but should provide supports that maximize diversion from commitment • Principles • Keep youth as shallow in the system as possible • Provide greater ability to access family and support systems • Meet the real needs of youth to best enable them to regulate their own behavior and succeed once home Grow alternative capacities Shrink current facilities Fill gaps • Regionalize more youth in current facilities • Find alternatives for girls • Improve family engagement options through technology and enhanced volunteer efforts • Build probation capacity • Increase regionalization efforts with an emphasis on underserved regions • Increase medium restriction contract beds • Encourage private sector options • Add beds for intensive, long-term mental health needs • Provide funding for emergency short-term mental health stabilization beds for probation • Find other alternative placements Trauma-informed practices

  11. More flexible funding methodologies Three issues related to funding to probation departments All referrals. The current legislative method for setting appropriations does not consider the approximately 6,800 youth per year that probation departments divert away from supervision. Recognizing this population would encourage and incent further diversion from the system and help keep youth more shallow in the system. Simplifying funding. TJJD provides funding to departments through several types of grants with varying eligible expenditure areas. TJJD is working to simplify these methods as much as possible within our own authority before asking for any legislative remedy. More local control. We are working on providing more local control and greater predictability for diversion funding. Funding structure is overly complex.

  12. LAR Growing capacity and capabilities at the local level will improve services and decrease the need for state commitments New probation resources $22.8m • Probation increase to offset rising non-secure placement costs $5.6m. • Probation funds to enhance regionalization $4.4m. • Probation funds to build new resources and capabilities $3.0m. • Continuation of statewide risk and needs assessment $3.0m. • Emergency mental health stabilization placements $1.0m. • Staff support for probation $780k. • Alternative placements $5m

  13. System focus across settings new initiatives designed with clear intent State Facilities Implementing new treatment programs to replace outdated or ineffective ones Contracts Interagency Partnering with others to build a broad network of placement options for committed youth Probation Working with local probation departments to help them reach adequate capacity and resources HWH & Parole Ensuring youth are transitioned to their home and communities with appropriate supports, referrals, and resources to be successful

  14. Strategic Areas To enable more family and support system engagement, we need new opportunities for youth coming from underserved areas Giddings region has high needs 130 fewer youth or new placement options needed * Does not include girls, RTC, Phoenix, & O&A.

  15. Local Partnership

  16. Before we get started…. • There are 166 juvenile probation departments in Texas. How this partnership looks and works is different across the State. • Local jurisdictions should be commended for the support they provide and continue to provide to the juvenile probation departments. Approximately, 422 million dollars in FY2017. • By many measurements – local juvenile probation departments have done an outstanding job meeting the needs of their local communities. With a steady increase in the juvenile age population - referrals are down, supervisions are down, and commitments are down. • Agree to a partnership that works for all. Identify the things you have to do, and the things you need to do.

  17. YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER…..

  18. JUVENILE BOARDS A juvenile board can be thought of as a committee of judges in each county whose responsibility is to oversee the operations of the juvenile justice system in that county. Many juvenile boards are created by local legislation—each statute having applicability only to one county.

  19. Midland County Juvenile Board 152.1711 Human Resources Code MIDLAND COUNTY. (a) The Midland County Juvenile Board is composed of the county judge, the district judges in Midland County, and the judge of each county court at law. (b) The juvenile court judge is the chairman of the board and its chief administrative officer. (c) The chairman shall certify all claims for expenses of the juvenile probation officer as necessary in the performance of the officer's duties. The commissioners court shall provide the necessary funds to pay the salaries and expenses of the juvenile probation officer. (d) Sections 152.0002, 152.0003, 152.0004, 152.0005, 152.0006, 152.0007, and 152.0008 do not apply to the juvenile board of Midland County. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 352, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

  20. Deaf Smith County Juvenile Board 152.0651 Human Resources Code DEAF SMITH COUNTY. (a) The Deaf Smith County Juvenile Board is composed of:(1) the county judge; (2) two persons appointed by the Hereford City Commission;(3) two persons appointed by the commissioners court; and(4) two persons appointed by the board of trustees of the Hereford Independent School District. (b) The appointed members serve staggered two-year terms with the terms of one person appointed by the city, one person appointed by the county, and one person appointed by the school district expiring on December 31 of each year. (c) The board shall elect one of its members as chairman. (d) Board members serve without compensation. (e) The commissioners court, Hereford City Commission, and the board of trustees of the Hereford Independent School District may agree to pay equally the costs of the salaries and expenses of the juvenile department. The commissioners court, city commission, and board of trustees shall determine the length of the agreement. The city of Hereford and the Hereford Independent School District may appropriate and spend money to implement this subsection. (f) Sections 152.0002, 152.0003, 152.0004, 152.0005, 152.0006, 152.0007, and 152.0008 do not apply to the juvenile board of Deaf Smith County. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 352, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

  21. THE PROBLEM Juvenile Boards A.docx Many specific juvenile board statutes in Chapter 152 of the Human Resources Code have exempted the board from Sections 152.0007 and 152.0008. Attempts were made in 2001, that would have provided that the amendments to 152.0007 and 152.0008 apply regardless of any contrary provisions in the chapter relating to specific juvenile boards. It did not pass. So, legally, Sections 152.0007 and 152.0008 do not apply to many juvenile boards. Despite that fact, it is recommended for efficiency reasons that a juvenile board should operate as envisioned by the language contained in Sections 152.0007 and 152.0008.

  22. Personnel & Budgeting Juvenile board legislation usually gives the juvenile board the power to select and employ the chief juvenile probation officer for the county and to approve the chief’s selection of all other departmental personnel. In addition, the juvenile board is empowered to approve expenditures from the fund created by state aid and from other sources, such as grants and probation supervision fees. Approval of hiring decisions by the juvenile board is not required or authorized. If the hiring and firing decisions of the chief do not please the board, it is free to discharge the chief.

  23. Budget Review by Commissioners Court Human Resources Code Section 142.002(a) A juvenile board may, with the advice and consent of the commissioners court, employ probation officers and administrative, supervisory, stenographic, and other clerical personnel necessary to provide juvenile probation services according to the standards established by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department and the local need as determined by the juvenile board.

  24. Budget Review by Commissioners Court In 1995, the legislature, without repealing or amending Section 142.002(a), enacted Human Resources Code Section 152.0012 The juvenile board shall prepare a budget for the juvenile probation department and the other facilities and programs under the jurisdiction of the juvenile board. The commissioners court shall review and consider only the amount of county funds derived from county taxes, fees, and other county sources in the budget. The commissioners court may not review any part of the budget derived from state funds.

  25. Budget Review by Commissioners Court In 1997, the legislature, without repealing or amending either of the two previous provisions, enacted Local Government Code Section 111.094 “The commissioners court in preparing the county budget shall determine the amount of county funds to be spent for the juvenile probation department in the county budget.” Section 223.002 of the Human Resources Code ties eligibility to receive full state funding through the Texas Juvenile Justice Department to the effort of the county and the local juvenile board to maintain a minimum level of financial support for the local juvenile justice system. 1994/2006.

  26. IMPORTANT - Budgeting Local Government Code Sec. 140.004 Juvenile Boards B.docx If the County Budget starts on October 1st each year – the critical date for the juvenile board is August 17th each year to submit their proposed budget to the Commissioners Court. REMEMBER – 14 days prior to the Board approving the department budget for submission, the board should submit a copy of the proposed budget and a statement containing when the Board will meet on the proposed budget.

  27. Control Over the Expenditure of Budgeted Funds Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0209 (2000) The role of a commissioners court is restricted to approving the amount of county money that will be contributed to that fund based on the budget presented by the juvenile board. The commissioners court determines the amount of county funds that will be budgeted to the juvenile probation department in each budget year. The commissioners court may review only those portions of the juvenile board’s budget funded with county funds. After the juvenile probation department budget is finalized, a juvenile board must expend funds according to the budget. Any budget amendments must be considered and approved in a public meeting.

  28. Department Funding Pursuant to Section 140.003, once the county funds budgeted for the juvenile probation department are transferred to the department, they are deposited in a special account in the county treasury, along with state funds allocated to the department. At this point, the funds become funds of the juvenile probation department to be disbursed as directed by the juvenile board and lose their character as county funds. Although disbursements from the account are subject to review and the approval of the county auditor, see Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. §140.003(g) (Vernon 1999) … the commissioners court lacks authority to review juvenile probation department expenditures.

  29. Considerations Identify the things you have to do, and the things you need to do. It is critical that the Chief JPO, the County Auditor and Board Chair work together in all budget matters. These are the three individuals who must sign and accept state funds through the approved contract with TJJD. With all department funds and in accordance with the Local Government Code (Sec. 140.003(g)), the county auditor reviews and approves all disbursements. Allow the juvenile board to be responsible for oversight of the operations of the juvenile justice system in the county as mandated. Respect the fact that the commissioners court has invested a great deal of funds toward public safety as it relates to the juvenile justice system. What are their expectations of the department?

  30. Thanks! Questions?

More Related