Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/SUM/2016SUM00147-R02HB-05642-SUM.htm
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 19:50:04
Document Index: 691089657

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 6', '§ 11', '§ 12', '§ 13', '§ 16', '§ 17', '§ 18']

AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
PA 16-147—sHB 5642
This act makes numerous changes affecting juvenile justice and schools.
With regard to juvenile detention, it:
requires the judicial branch's Court Support Services Division (CSSD) to develop and implement a detention risk assessment instrument and adopt release policies and procedures,
limits the conditions under which a child may be detained and allows graduated sanctions as an alternative to detention, and 3.
requires CSSD and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to develop and implement a plan to provide community-based services for children leaving juvenile detention.
The act prohibits state-operated juvenile justice residential facilities from imposing out-of-school suspensions.
Regarding the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee (JJPOC), the act:
adds the victim advocate, or her designee, as a member;
eliminates some of its reporting responsibilities and requires a report on planning for a community-based diversion system;
requires it to establish a data integration working group.
The act makes various changes affecting schools, such as:
requiring schools to offer an alternative educational opportunity to a larger category of expelled students;
eliminating a child's truancy as permissible grounds for a family with service needs complaint;
requiring schools with a disproportionately high truancy rate to implement an approved intervention model;
requiring the State Department of Education (SDE), in collaboration with other agencies, to develop plans on certain matters, such as school-based diversion initiatives and educational deficiencies among children in the juvenile justice system.
The act also includes provisions on, among other matters, police training, a recidivism reduction framework, and training on and monitoring of de-escalation efforts.
The act specifies that the juvenile court in the judicial district where the child resides has jurisdiction over juvenile matters if the child's residence can be determined.
By law, when a child is brought before a Superior Court judge, the judge must immediately proceed with the case as a juvenile matter and determine whether to release or detain the child.
The law requires an officer who brings a child into detention to first notify, or make a reasonable effort to notify, the child's parents or guardian of the intended action and file, at the detention center, a copy of a signed statement of the child's alleged delinquent conduct.
The act requires the officer to also file the order to detain the child.
Under existing law, the child may be released to the custody of his or her parents, guardian, or other suitable person or agency.
Before the child may be released, the act requires the child to be assessed using CSSD's detention risk assessment instrument and he or she may be released in accordance with CSSD's release policies and procedures (see below).
As is the case under existing law, this does not apply if the child was arrested for a serious juvenile offense or an order not to release is noted on the records.
Conditions Under Which a Child May be Placed in Detention Under existing law, unchanged by the act, a child may not be placed in detention unless a Superior Court judge determines, based on available facts, that there is (1) probable cause to believe that the child has committed the acts alleged and (2) no less restrictive alternative available.
The law requires the court to make an additional finding to support the detention order from a list of other factors, including that detention is needed to hold the child (1) for another jurisdiction or (2) to ensure his or her appearance before the court, as demonstrated by the child's previous failure to respond to the court process.
The act also allows the court to authorize a detention order if there is probable cause to believe that the child will pose a risk to public safety if released to the community before the court hearing or disposition.
But it no longer allows the court to authorize a detention order that is based on a finding that:
there is a strong probability the child would run away before the court hearing or disposition or commit or attempt to commit other offenses injurious to himself or herself or the community before the court disposition, 2.
there is probable cause to believe that the child's continued residence in his or her home pending disposition posed a risk to the child or community because of the serious and dangerous nature of the act or acts the child was alleged to have committed, or 3.
the child violated any condition of a suspended detention order.
The act establishes the maximum amount of time a child may be held in detention.
An order to detain a child can be up to seven days or until the dispositional hearing, whichever period is shorter.
After a detention review hearing, a renewal period must not exceed the same time limit.
Under the act, the court, as an alternative to detention, may issue a suspended detention order with graduated sanctions imposed based on the CSSD detention risk assessment instrument described below.
The act requires CSSD, by January 1, 2017, to develop and implement a detention risk assessment instrument.
CSSD must use the instrument to determine, based on the risk level, whether there is:
probable cause to believe that a child will pose a risk to public safety if released to the community before a court hearing or disposition or 2.
a need to hold the child in order to ensure the child's appearance before the court, given the child's previous failure to respond to the court process.
Under the act, a detention screening is subject to the confidentiality protections noted below (see § 4).
Under the act, the court must use the detention risk assessment instrument when assessing whether a child should be detained.
nonresidential programs for intensive wraparound services, 2.
community-based residential services for short-term respite, or 3.
other services and interventions the court deems appropriate.
The act requires CSSD, by January 1, 2017, to adopt policies and procedures setting out the parameters under which the division's staff may release a child from detention.
The division may update the parameters as it deems necessary.
Under the act, any information obtained about a child during a detention screening must be used only for planning and treatment purposes.
Otherwise, it must generally remain confidential and be kept in the files of the entity providing the screening.
It may be further disclosed for limited purposes, including a court-ordered evaluation or treatment or mandated reporter laws.
The act also provides that any such information obtained during the administration of the detention screening instrument described above must be used only to make a recommendation to the court about the child's detention.
The information is not subject to subpoena or other court process for use in any other proceeding, or for any other purpose.
The act requires the CSSD executive director and the DCF commissioner, by October 1, 2016, to jointly develop a plan to provide community-based services to children diverted or released from juvenile detention.
The plan must be based on DCF's existing comprehensive behavioral health implementation plan and address children's needs regarding:
behavioral health, 2.
intervention in family violence cases, and
the identification and resolution of behavioral factors exhibited by a child who may run away.
The act requires the executive director and the commissioner to implement the plan by July 1, 2017 and report to the JJPOC on the plan's implementation by January 1, 2017.
Upon passage § 6 — JUVENILE COURT'S AUTHORITY
In delinquency proceedings, the court can make and enforce an order for certain purposes.
The act eliminates punishment as a purpose for an order.
Under the act, the court's orders can (1) provide individualized supervision, care, accountability, and treatment to the child in a manner consistent with public safety and (2) ensure that the child is responsive to the court process.
Under the law, unchanged by the act, the court has authority to make and enforce orders that, among other things, deter the child from committing more delinquent acts, ensure the safety of others, and provide restitution to victims.
The act eliminates, from the permissible grounds for a family with service needs (FWSN) complaint, a child being a truant, habitual truant, or continuously and overtly defying school rules and regulations.
It makes corresponding changes by eliminating requirements that:
certain school notices on unexcused absences for K-8 students contain a warning that a specified number of absences may lead to a FWSN complaint and
superintendents file a FWSN complaint within 15 days after a parent or other person with control of a child (a) fails to attend a meeting with school officials to discuss the child's truancy or (b) otherwise fails to cooperate in addressing the truancy.
The act requires SDE to identify effective truancy intervention models for school boards to implement as set forth below.
By August 15, 2017, SDE must make available a list of the models it approves.
Existing law requires school boards to adopt and implement policies and procedures on truancy.
The act requires the policies and procedures to include, by August 15, 2018, implementing an approved truancy intervention model at any schools that the SDE commissioner determines have a disproportionately high truancy rate.
Upon passage, except August 15, 2017 for the provision on school boards adding truancy intervention models to their truancy policies.
Under existing law, police basic training programs must include training on handling juvenile matters, consisting of at least:
27 hours of such training, if the program is conducted or administered by the State Police, and
14 hours of such training, if the program is conducted or administered by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council or local police departments.
The act extends these requirements to police field training programs.
It also adds the following to the required training components:
using graduated sanctions, 2.
techniques for handling trauma, 3.
restorative justice practices, 4.
adolescent development, 5.
risk-assessment and screening tools, and 6.
emergency mobile psychiatric services.
Under the act, these training components also apply to the review training programs conducted by any of these entities.
By law, police review training programs must include one hour of training on handling juvenile matters.
January 1, 2017 § 11 — SCHOOL-BASED DIVERSION INITIATIVES
The act requires SDE, DCF, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), and CSSD, by August 15, 2017, to develop a plan with cost options for school-based diversion initiatives to reduce juvenile justice involvement among children with mental health needs.
The initiatives are for schools and districts with high rates of school-based arrests, disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system, and a high number of juvenile justice referrals, as the SDE commissioner determines.
Upon passage § 12 — SCHOOL EXPULSION
The act makes various changes concerning school expulsion.
By law, an “expulsion” is the exclusion from school privileges for more than 10 days and up to one year.
By law, except in emergencies, a school board must hold a formal hearing before expelling a student.
If the student is a minor, the school board must give the parent or guardian notice of the hearing.
The act requires school boards to provide the notice to the student's parent or guardian at least five business days before the hearing.
It requires the notice to include information on the parent's or guardian's and student's legal rights.
The law already requires the notice to include information on free or low-cost legal services and how to obtain them.
The act conforms to practice by specifying that an attorney or advocate may represent any student subject to expulsion proceedings.
It allows the parent or guardian to postpone the hearing for up to one week to provide time to find representation, except in emergencies.
Under existing law and the act, in an emergency, the hearing must be held as soon after expulsion as possible.
An emergency exists when a student's continued presence poses such a danger or disruption as to require a pre-hearing exclusion from school, with the hearing held as soon as possible after the exclusion.
Existing law requires school boards to offer an alternative educational opportunity to all expelled students under age 16 and certain expelled students between ages 16 to 18.
The act applies an existing definition of “alternative education” to these provisions.
Under this definition, an alternative education is a school or program maintained and operated by a school board that is offered to students in a nontraditional setting and addresses their social, emotional, behavioral, and academic needs.
The act specifies that school boards must offer an individualized learning plan as part of the alternative education for expelled students under age 16.
The act also expands the category of students between ages 16 to 18 expelled for the first time who must be offered this alternative educational opportunity.
It does so by repealing a provision that allowed school boards to deny this opportunity to such a student who was expelled for conduct that endangered others and involved the following, on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event:
possession of a firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous instrument, or martial arts weapon or
offering a controlled substance for sale or distribution.
As under prior law, (1) expelled students between ages 16 to 18 who are offered an alternative educational opportunity must comply with conditions established by the school board and (2) school boards are not required to offer an alternative education to expelled students between ages 16 to 18 with prior expulsions.
Under existing law, if a student is expelled for possessing a firearm or deadly weapon, the school board must report the violation to the local police, or the State Police if the student was enrolled in a technical high school.
The act specifies that this reporting requirement also applies to expulsions for possessing dangerous instruments or martial arts weapons.
(Generally, “dangerous instruments” are those that can be used to cause death or serious physical injury.
Returning to School After Participating in Diversionary Program
Under the act, if a student who committed an expellable offense was not expelled and is seeking to return to a school district after participating in a diversionary program, the school board must (1) allow the student to re-enroll and (2) not expel the student for additional time for the offense.
This already applies to such students seeking to re-enroll after placement in a juvenile detention center or the Connecticut Juvenile Training School, or any other residential placement.
August 15, 2017 § 13 — OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS IN JUVENILE JUSTICE RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES
The act prohibits facilities operated by DCF, the Department of Correction (DOC), or CSSD from imposing an out-of-school suspension on a child residing in the facility.
This provision does not prevent these facilities from removing a child from a classroom for therapeutic purposes.
The act requires SDE, DCF, DOC, and the judicial branch, by August 15, 2017, to collaborate to develop and submit a plan to the JJPOC for assessing and addressing the individualized educational needs and deficiencies of children in the justice system and those reentering the community from public and private juvenile justice and correctional facilities.
The plan must have an implementation date of August 15, 2018 or earlier and be implemented within available resources.
In developing the plan, the departments and the branch must research nationally recognized models for effective educational programming continuity for children in the justice system and incorporate these models, as appropriate, into the implementation plan.
They also must consult with local and regional school boards to identify (1) appropriate assessment tools to be used consistently to measure the educational performance of such children and those transitioning into and from juvenile justice and correctional facilities and (2) professional development specifically designed for educators who work with children in the justice system.
increased collaboration, monitoring, and accountability among state agencies and between state agencies and school boards to improve educational service delivery and outcomes for children in the justice system and those transitioning from out-of-state and private juvenile justice and correctional facilities, including prompt sharing of education records;
providing for children involved in the justice system and those transitioning out of juvenile justice and correctional facilities, and their parents or guardians, to have input into education plans the state and school boards develop for these children;
establishing transition teams to reintegrate children leaving residential facilities by helping them have a timely and effective reconnection with educational and alternative education services provided by the applicable school board, and coordinating the identification and adequate provision of any special education needs of the child;
designating a reentry liaison for each school board to expedite the enrollment of children returning to the district and provide that they receive appropriate academic credit for work performed while in the juvenile justice system;
the costs for implementing an array of research-supported academic and vocational transitional supports, including tutors, educational surrogates, coaches, and advocates.
The act requires DCF and the judicial branch, by January 1, 2017, to work with private service providers to adopt and comply with an empirically supported recidivism reduction framework for the juvenile justice system.
The framework must:
include risk and needs assessment tools, 2.
use treatment matching protocols that assess a child's needs and the risks a child faces, 3.
use cross-agency measurements of program outcomes and training and quality assurance processes, 4.
use program and practice monitoring and accountability,
draw from best and evidence-based practices from an inventory DCF and the judicial branch annually update, and
ensure sufficient contract and quality assurance capacity and shared training between agencies and private providers.
Upon passage § 16 — DCF AND JUDICIAL BRANCH STAFF TRAINING AND DATA MONITORING
The act requires DCF and the judicial branch, by January 1, 2017, to:
develop, provide, and monitor training for their employees on policies and practices in secure and congregate care settings that promote de-escalation;
monitor and track successful and unsuccessful de-escalation efforts used in these settings;
collect baseline data on the number and rate of arrests in these settings, tracked by race, gender, and the child's risk for recidivism;
track and analyze recidivism rates of all children involved with the juvenile justice system.
Upon passage § 17 — OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT (OPM) TRACKING OF RECIDIVISM
Under the act, the OPM secretary must track and analyze recidivism rates for children in the state.
January 1, 2017 § 18 — JJPOC
By law, the JJPOC is charged with evaluating and reporting on juvenile justice system policies.
The act adds the victim advocate, or her designee, to the committee.
The act eliminates a requirement that the JJPOC report by July 1 of 2016, 2017, and 2018 on its assessment of the juvenile justice system and recommendations to improve it.
Prior law required the committee to submit these reports, addressing several specified matters, to the Appropriations, Children's, Human Services, and Judiciary committees and the OPM secretary.
The act also eliminates a requirement that the JJPOC submit to these same recipients quarterly reports until January 1, 2017, and annual reports after that, on the committee's progress in achieving its goals and measures.
The act instead requires the JJPOC to submit a report, to these same recipients, on a plan with cost options for developing a community-based diversion system.
The committee must report by January 1, 2017.
The plan must include recommendations to address mental health and juvenile justice issues.
Specifically, it must include recommendations on:
diverting children who commit crimes from the juvenile justice system, other than those committing serious juvenile offenses;
identifying evidence-based and trauma-informed services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate;
expanding the capacity of juvenile review boards to accept referrals from local police departments and schools and implement restorative practices;
expanding prevention, intervention, and treatment services by youth service bureaus;
expanding access to in-home and community services;
identifying and expanding services to support children who are truant or defying school rules, and increasing collaboration between school districts and community providers to best serve these children;
expanding the use of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between local police and school boards regarding school resource officers;
expanding the use of MOUs between school boards and community providers for community-based services;
ensuring that children in the juvenile justice system have access to a full range of community-based behavioral health services;
reinvesting cost savings associated with reduced childhood incarceration rates and increased accessibility to community-based behavioral health services;
reimbursement policies that give providers incentives to deliver evidence-based practices to children in the juvenile justice system;
promoting common behavioral health screening tools in schools and communities;
ensuring that secure facilities operated by DCF or CSSD and private providers contracting with them screen children in these facilities for behavioral health issues;
expanding service capacities, informed by examining grant funds and federal Medicaid reimbursement rates.
The act requires the JJPOC to establish a working group to develop a plan for a data integration process linking data on children across executive branch agencies (through OPM's integrated data system) and the judicial branch (through CSSD).
The purpose of this data integration is to evaluate and assess juvenile justice system programs, services, and outcomes.
the DCF, DOC, SDE, and DMHAS commissioners;
and the chief court administrator.
Under the act, this data integration plan must include cost options and provisions to:
access relevant data on juvenile justice populations;
coordinate handling of data and research requests;
link executive and judicial branch data to facilitate data sharing and analysis;
establish provisions to protect confidential information and enforce and ensure compliance with state and federal confidentiality laws;
develop specific recommendations for the JJPOC on using limited releases of client specific data sharing across systems, including with OPM, the Division of Criminal Justice, DCF, SDE, DMHAS, the judicial branch, and other agencies;
develop a standard MOU template for sharing data between executive branch agencies, the judicial branch, and when necessary, outside researchers.
Upon passage OLR Tracking: