Brief Summary of Second Substitute Bill

Creates a three-county pilot program to site more secure crisis residential centers (CRC) as an alternative to juvenile detention and expand family services through community truancy boards (CTB) to prevent nonoffender youth from entering the juvenile court system.
Requires the allocation of funds to the selected counties to site secure CRCs that meet therapeutic standards and make them more accessible and available.
Requires the allocation of funds to CTBs to provide certain evidence-based services and case management services.
Requires the submission of a joint report to the Legislature that includes statistics on the number of youth placed in secure CRCs, the number receiving evidence-based services or case management services, or both, and any legislative recommendations, by January 1, 2021.

Background: Family Reconciliation Act (FRA). In 1990, the Legislature amended the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 to enact the FRA. The FRA provides services and assistance for families that are in conflict and dealing with children who run away, have substance abuse problems, or who are endangered because of behavior that their parents are unable to control. A parent, child, or the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) may seek court assistance by filing an at-risk youth (ARY) or child in need of services (CHINS) petition.

ARY. Only the parent or guardian of the child may file an ARY petition. The purpose of filing an ARY petition is to obtain assistance and support from the juvenile court in maintaining the care, custody, and control of the child and to assist in the resolution of family conflict, after alternatives to court intervention have been attempted. The ARY proceeding is a voluntary process and a parent or guardian may request dismissal at any time.

CHINS. A child, parent, or guardian, or DSHS may file a CHINS petition. The purpose of filing a CHINS petition is to obtain a court order mandating temporary placement, for up to six months, of the child in a residence other than the home of the child's parent or guardian. Petitions are filed because a serious conflict exists between the parent and child that cannot be resolved by delivery of services to the family during continued placement of the child in the parental home, and reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the need for removal of the child from the parental home.

Community Truancy Boards (CTB). The use of CTBs is the state's preferred means of intervention when preliminary methods to eliminate or reduce unexcused absences have not been effective in securing a child's attendance at school. Except for those with fewer than 300 students, school districts must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the county juvenile court regarding the operation of a CTB. CTBs must: identify barriers to school attendance; recommend methods for improving attendance such as connecting students and their families with community services, culturally appropriate promising practices, and evidence-based services such as functional family therapy; suggest to the school district that the child enroll in another school, an alternative education program, an education center, a skill center, a dropout prevention program, or another public or private educational program; or recommend to the juvenile court that a juvenile be offered the opportunity for placement in a HOPE center or crisis residential center, if appropriate.

Crisis Residential Centers (CRC). Crisis residential centers are short-term, semi-secure or secure, facilities for runaway youth and adolescents in conflict with their families. Counselors at a CRC work with the families to resolve the immediate conflict and develop better ways of dealing with conflict in the future. With respect to the use of CRCs in the truancy context, in cases when a court orders detention, it must preferably be served at a secure CRC close to the child's home rather than in a juvenile detention facility.

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). The Washington State Partnership Council on Juvenile Justice, in partnership with nine county juvenile courts, has adopted JDAI as a detention reform and system improvement initiative. The Legislature has invested funds in this program since 2008 to assist with funding JDAI in Washington and to provide for its expansion. JDAI strategies include: establishing local leadership committees to collaboratively improve juvenile justice; analyzing data to guide policies and practices; utilizing a detention risk assessment to safely make detention admission or release decisions; developing a continuum of community-based programs for alternatives to secure detention; expediting case processing times consistent with due process; piloting new practices to reduce the need for warrants and increase compliance with court orders; and reducing racial disparities in the juvenile justice system.

Summary of Bill (Second Substitute): The Office of Homeless Youth Prevention and Protection Programs (OHY), the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), and the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ), in consultation with the state Center for Court Research must conduct a three-county pilot program to site more secure CRCs in the selected counties as an alternative to juvenile detention and expand family services through CTBs in those counties to prevent nonoffender youth from entering the juvenile court system.

The preferred three counties to be selected must have the highest use of detention, must have the highest propensity to use a valid court order, must not have implemented juvenile detention alternatives initiative (JDAI) strategies, and do not have secure CRCs accessible or available.

OHY must allocate funds to the selected counties to site secure CRCs that meet therapeutic standards and make them more accessible and available.

OSPI must allocate funds to CTBs to provide evidence-based services, including functional family therapy, when possible.

OJJ must allocate funds to CTBs to provide families with case management services, including the use of JDAI, when possible. Current funding for JDAI in other counties must not be affected. CTBs may provide services directly or through contract.

The pilot program expires on July 1, 2020.

OHY, OSPI, and OJJ must submit a joint report to the Legislature that includes statistics on the number of youth placed in secure CRCs, the number receiving evidence-based services or case management services, or both, and any legislative recommendations, by January 1, 2021.

EFFECT OF CHANGES MADE BY HUMAN SERVICES & CORRECTIONS COMMITTEE (First Substitute):

Removes all provisions in the underlying bill.

Creates a three-county pilot program administered by the Office of Homeless Youth Prevention and Protection Programs (OHY), the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), and the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ), in consultation with the state Center for Court Research to site more secure crisis residential centers (CRC) in the selected counties as an alternative to juvenile detention and expand family services through community truancy boards (CTB) to prevent nonoffender youth from entering the juvenile court system.

Restricts the 3 counties selected to those with the highest use of detention, the highest propensity to use a valid court order, that have not implemented juvenile detention alternatives initiative (JDAI) strategies, and that do not have secure CRCs accessible or available.

Requires OHY to allocate funds to the selected counties to site secure CRCs that meet therapeutic standards and make them more accessible and available.

Requires OSPI to allocate funds to CTBs to provide evidence-based services, including functional family therapy, when possible.

Requires OJJ to allocate funds to CTBs to provide families with case management services, including the use of JDAI, when possible.

Authorizes the CTBs to provide services directly or through contract.

Expires the pilot program on July 1, 2020.

Requires OHY, OSPI, and OJJ to submit a joint report to the Legislature that includes statistics on the number of youth placed in secure CRCs, the number receiving evidence-based services or case management services, or both, and any legislative recommendations, by January 1, 2021.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony on Original Bill (Human Services & Corrections): The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: The state can step up and implement more evidence-based practices for families. Truancy is not simply a youth skipping school but is also a challenge for families. The current version of the bill is a work in progress. The bill proposal offers a holistic approach to keep kids out of juvenile detention. It is critical for the Legislature to respond to the youth homelessness crisis. The bill would remove procedural roadblocks to receiving services and better facilitate family reunification.

The bill is designed to strengthen families and prevent youth homelessness, and keep youth safe during family crises. Research shows that 90 percent of youth cite family conflict as the cause of their homelessness. Parents have complained that the existing ARY/CHINS system is too complicated and difficult to navigate, or services are just not available. Families still have issues with taking their problems to court. Research shows that detention is traumatic for youth, furthers feelings of alienation, and exacerbates clinical symptoms. Some youth feel aged out of some services while simultaneously too young to receive other services.

The bill is critical to prevent youth from falling through the cracks of our state. A FINS system would allow youth to stay in one shelter and one school. It is very discouraging when a youth asks for family services and is turned away. Most clients need help and support during short-term family crises. The bill would provide youth access to more existing shelter options. The transitional success program is another important step the Legislature should fund and support.

The FINS system would provide immediate counseling services to families. A recent FINS survey of stakeholders with 182 responses collected expressed that the current ARY/CHINS system is burdensome and lacks transparency, but the original intent of the system is still meaningful. There is concern about the FINS system's ability to serve smaller counties with limited capacity.

CON: The bill would remove the use of detention for youth held in contempt of a court order, and such order is a core component of the court process. For chronically non-compliant youth, detention is needed to preserve a safe and secure environment. There are very few CRC and HOPE center beds to meet demand in some counties. There needs to be proper placements and available resources for the bill to work. The role of courts and screening out-of-home placements under the bill would be difficult to implement for training and assignment purposes. Not every county has adequate FFT services.

The detrimental impacts of juvenile detention on youth is significant, but one or two days in detention can be life-saving. Judges prefer not to put kids in juvenile detention, but there are not enough secure CRC beds across the state as an alternative. One possible solution is to place preference with MDT recommendations before remedial sanctions are ordered. If courts cannot enforce an order, it is no longer an order but an invitation. There are funding problems as well. Safety is defined on a fact-dependent, case-by-case basis. Every county sending youth offenders to a secure CRC might be an alternative to detention.

OTHER: The general intent of the bill is supported. Parents may face conflicting information when attempting to file an ARY/CHINS petition. The current Becca bill proceedings needs to be reexamined and perhaps focus on working with the newly created DCYF.