IACJJA Meeting

Idaho Association of County Juvenile Justice Administrators

May 9,2001     Pocatello

 Present:  John Triplett, Steve Jett, Shelly Smith, Leah Jarnagin, Don Garner, Ben Garcia, Greg Goody, Brian Walker, Nadine McDonald, Steve Barton, Doug Brown, Elaine Broyles, Scott Mosher, Jack Cordon, Kyle Fisher, Lisa Kamachi, Bill Lasley, Rob Newell, Ronya Hemenway, Mike Stallcup, Seth Scott, Shane Bahr, Debbie Stallcup, Kipp Dana, Matt Olsen, JoAnn Gehman.

 Minutes

 Treasurer report:  $3163.24 in bank.  List of 24 counties that have joined was sent to John.  No further discussion was had on membership recruitment efforts.

 Kids restraining kids at St. Anthony and communications with PO’s.  Doug had a parent question some of the practices at St. A’s.  Her son has been involved in restraining kids and has also been restrained by other kids.  The Association has a concern about this.  Jack Cordon addressed this and assured us that there is always other techniques involved to make sure that the restraints are always used as only a last resort.  He also said that the peer restraints have been used for 15 years with no major injuries, and that the restraints happen from between 15 and 40 times per month.  In the new developmentally disabled unit, peer restraints are not used.  The practice is being looked at for improvement.  Rob Newell talked about some of the problems dealing with peer restraints and also problems that they will have to face if the state goes away from the practice.  He stated that the AG’s office issued a legal opinion advising them to stop this practice two years ago. 

 We talked about having better communications with counties when a restraint occurs.  Notification should be happening, but if there are any problems, counties should notify JCC-E.  Critical events that should trigger notification of P.O.’s include restraints, injury, suicide attempt, fights, changes of program, sexual incidents, etc.  Also talked about were incidents involving kids that are committed to the state who cause problems or commit law violations in detention centers.  .  Communication will be stressed in the future.  Some of the positive experiences were voiced, also. 

 24 kids in 27 beds in spite if long waiting list in county JDC’s.  Steve shared the frustrations with this point and the response to Jerry Riley.  Brian told about his situation in the 3B detention Center.  Seth talked about the problems that the long waits are causing with behavior and with space in the Region VI Center.  The administrators feel that we are being asked to max our resources, but we do not feel that DJC is maxing theirs.  Doug voiced the fact that we have to work together on solving this problem. 

 Protocol for kids in DJC custody when on home visits—Debbie Stallcup voiced some concerns about some of the protocol that needs to be followed when county probation is visiting kids that are on home passes.  The PO had a problem and called DJC for guidelines, and was told that there was no protocol.  There should be a protocol established so that there is no problem in the future.  John offered to Dr. Newell (and DJC) that the Association would be supportive of having representation on the development of any future protocols regarding this matter.

Rooms for joint meetings.  We will be creative in lining up rooms for the joint meetings.  Since the meetings are usually smaller than the IACJJA meetings, we can probably find small rooms for free.  This will keep us from having the problems with billing that we are currently seeing.

Scott Mosher talked about the Jeff D lawsuit from DHW’s standpoint.  The lawsuit is over 20 years old and has been brought up again in 2000.  DJC was named a party to the lawsuit.  Many kids are given a conduct disorder diagnosis, which does not qualify them for services.  Outreach model has been developed for assessments to take place outside of the office, possibly in detention centers, etc.  Some of the problems can be resolved by collaboration.  Crisis response, services, etc., were discussed.  Scott will bring up our concerns and express our willingness to help with any planning, implementation that is appropriate.  Possibly a member of our group can be appointed to the task force. 

Technical assistance.  Nadine has been in contact with Sharon Harrigfeld and a couple groups, including OJJDP, that are interested in program evaluation.  Technical assistance is available, and training can be accessed.  She stated that we can have the training come to the state with possibly no cost to us.  Three sites could possibly be utilized so that more people can make it to the training.  Nadine and Brian will follow this up and we should be able to set some training dates soon.

Code of Ethics.  Steve motioned that the Code of Ethics that the committee formulated be accepted.  Some discussion was also had concerning doing a Code for Probation officers.  The same committee will still be involved, and any feedback can be forwarded to Steve Jett for distribution to the committee.  The Code of Ethics is attached at the end of this message. 

LSI  Debbie talked about some of the concerns with the LSI.  The fact that it may be inconsistent was discussed.  If the LSI is simply for obtaining information, it may be OK, but may not be appropriate for determining placement of the juvenile.  Matt said that Bannock uses it but not for placement.  They use it to get more info.  DHW is using the CAFAS tool.  We should determine exactly what the reasons are for pursuing the LSI, where is DJC going with it?  The LSI can be another tool for information gathering. 

 Debbie also asked about the Risk Assessment that was developed.  Canyon uses it.  Bill L will look into it. 

 HB863 US congress.  Mike Stallcup informed us that this bill proposes doubling JAIBG money and the name changed to Graduated Sanctions Grants. 

 Interstate Compact problems.  Mike Stallcup brought up the issue of other states dumping problem kids into homes that are not appropriate for supervision.  The issue was brought up that you can appeal a placement.  The appeal process can be started by contacting Jody Taylor.  Through experience, it was also discussed that the appeal process can be frustrating. 

 Juvenile Probation Officer Job Task Analysis.  Doug talked about the analysis, the problems that were encountered with the first draft.  Debbie brought up some concerns with some of the questions that solicited misleading information.  Doug also thought that the second draft seems much more accurate.  The probation officer academy will start Sept 29, but there is a great need for instructors.  Instructors do not have to be administrators, but have to have three years of experience.  Please give Roch Clapp a call if interested at 334-5100 x253.

 Juvenile Detention Officer Academy update.  Steve informed the group that there were 29 students that went through, with an average GPA  of 90+ Points.  The high academic award was won by an officer out of 3-B, the leadership award was earned by an officer from Kootenai.  Several problems were encountered concerning dress and grooming codes, which Roch will address in a letter to the administrators.  There will also be a follow-up meeting with Roch, administrators and possibly students to review the successes of the academy and/or things that we need to change.  Bannock has adopted the POST dress and grooming standards for all if their officers. 

 No Shank Products  Steve showed a sample of a couple of the products available from Securitas, Inc.  The webpage to learn more about the products can be found at www.no-shank.com. 

 IJOS Board meeting on Friday in Boise.  Nadine will be attending. 

 Meeting adjourned

Idaho Juvenile Detention Officer Code of Ethics

1.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall respect and protect the civil and legal rights of all individuals.

2.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall refrain from discriminating against any individual because of race, gender, creed, national origin, religious affiliation, age, disability, or any other type of prohibited discrimination.

3.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall respect and protect the right of the public to be safeguarded from criminal activity.

4.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall treat every professional situation with concern for the welfare of the individuals involved and with no intent to personal gain.

5.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall refrain from using their positions to secure personal privileges or advantages or allow personal interest to impair objectivity in the performance of duty while acting in an official capacity.

6.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall refrain from entering into any formal or informal activity or agreement which presents a conflict of interest or is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of duties.

7.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall refrain from accepting any gifts, service, or favor that is or appears to be improper or implies an obligation inconsistent with the free and objective exercise of professional duties.

8.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall adhere to state and federal statutes regarding issues of confidentiality of detained juveniles and refrain from identifying juveniles or discussing critical problems or incidents outside of the official work setting. 

9.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall preserve the integrity of private information; they shall refrain from seeking information on individuals beyond that which is necessary to implement responsibilities and perform their duties; and shall refrain from revealing nonpublic information unless expressly authorized to do so.

10.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall maintain relationships with colleagues to promote mutual respect within the profession and improve the quality of service.

11.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall refrain from public criticism of their colleagues or their agencies except when warranted, verifiable, and constructive.

12.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall report to appropriate authorities any corrupt or unethical behaviors in which there is sufficient evidence to justify review.

13.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall make all appointments, promotions, and dismissals in accordance with established civil service rules, applicable contract agreements, and individual merit, rather than furtherance of personal interests.

14.  Juvenile Detention Officers shall respect, promote, and contribute to a work place that is safe, healthy, and free of harassment in any form.

15.  Juvenile Detention Officers subscribe to the ideal that juveniles have the right to be detained in a psychologically and physically safe and secure environment. 

16.  Juvenile Detention Officers encourage and participate in program development which generates a therapeutic social climate within the detention facility, and promotes the ideals of the Balanced Approach and the Juvenile Corrections Act.