DJJ DCFS Merger: Subject Matter Hearing – July 28, 2010
Good afternoon. My name is Eileen Subak and I represent the League of Women Voters of Illinois.
Thank you for convening this hearing to address the issue of merging two very different agencies--the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Children and Family Services. It is inevitable that the proposal raises a number of questions. Our comments today will be limited to our support for an independent Department of Juvenile Justice, followed by questions related to appropriations.
The League of Women Voters of Illinois supports an independent Department of Juvenile Justice.
The growing use of shared services, enhanced by the enactment of PA 96-1022, makes this a viable option. First, it would minimize disruption, which is in itself costly. Second, it would allow an easy and timely response to changing needs without “moving boxes.” Third, the choice would preserve the advances the DJJ has achieved through public and private grants.
In 1969 the League testified that there were certain advantages to having services in a separate agency—at that time the Illinois Youth Commission—rather than in the larger Department of Public Welfare it had once been part of. In 2005, the League supported the creation of the Department of Juvenile Justice.
However, if DJJ is merged with another agency, it is essential that it be a separate division with its own budget and “director.”
In 1969, after legislation called for a code department with one division for adults and another for juveniles, the League expressed concern that services for youth might be lost in the reorganization and urged that the Juvenile Division be autonomous with its own budget and that the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Assistant Director be clearly spelled out.
The League believes that advice is still valid today. The experience of a juvenile division within the Department of Corrections demonstrates how difficult it is to maintain the integrity of two populations of a different size and a separate mission. The statute that called for an Assistant Director to be confirmed by the Senate was circumvented much to the detriment of youth.
Is the proposed merger expected to result in financial benefits? The League has not seen an official rationale for the merger.
Could a merger jeopardize existing funding? Federal funds for the DOC and the DJJ commonly come through the US Department of Justice and are administered through the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission and the Criminal Justice Information Authority. DCFS has not had close ties with DOJ.
While not directly related to the merger, Redeploy Illinois is based on the principle of reducing commitments to DJJ by subsidizing services in the community at less cost. The League supported Redeploy as a promising program. Several factors, however, must be kept in mind:
1] Savings are theoretical until a facility actually closes.
2] The willingness of counties to participate in Redeploy Illinois is highly dependent on the economic health of local communities: Current budgets are tight, probation has lost funding, and many service providers experience delays in payment.
3] Savings do not necessarily benefit youth. According to The New York Times, June 11, 2010, New York State saved about $30 million by closing juvenile facilities over the past three years. Only $5 million of that amount, however, was used for community programming. The rest went into the general fund.
Two factors contribute to higher costs when commitments are reduced: 1] The loss of economy of scale. 2] The percentage of harder-to-serve youth in the state system increases.
How do DJJ costs compare with other states? Comparative costs must be made with caution. States that include probation will have lower costs than Illinois where probation is separate. Status offenders are included in the Missouri population but not in Illinois. Eight percent of DJJ youth were committed by the criminal courts, while other states send those youth to adult prisons. When compared to other states, the DJJ reports relatively higher-risk youth, an older population and a higher percentage of sex offenders.
Special Challenges - behavioral health needs and educational deficits. The DJJ reports that two-thirds of the youth have diagnosed psychiatric and trauma disorders; seven out of ten have substance abuse. Two thirds have not graduated from grade school; almost half have special education needs.
The DJJ lacks after care, an essential part of any juvenile system. Are there plans to add these services; if so, how would they be financed? An argument for a separate DJJ was based on the need to improve aftercare [parole], an urgent matter after juvenile services were absorbed by the Adult Division. Rehabilitation was to become a high priority as a means to reduce the likelihood that youth would become adult criminals. Unfortunately, there have been no appropriations for this purpose.
Closing Statement
It was understood that the Department of Juvenile Justice would come into existence with a flat budget. What was not clear to the League at the time was that there would be so little support for the necessary changes after years of indifference and neglect. Instead, progress has been achieved solely through public and private grants.
Over the years, I have worked on juvenile accreditation standards and national policy. I was a member of the DOC Juvenile Advisory Board for twenty years and served as its chair. I continue to be impressed with the men and women in corrections who, despite criticism, continue to dedicate themselves to working on behalf of young people.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know if the League can be of any further assistance.
Eileen Subak
Presenting for the LWVIL |
