|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)—Juvenile
Treatment Programs pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2958, which
requires a review of the programs and commissions established by the Legislature
within the judiciary. This audit was conducted under the authority vested in the
Auditor General by A.R.S. §41-1279.03.
The Supreme Court (Court), in coordination with county
juvenile courts, administers juvenile supervision and treatment programs
throughout the State. In fiscal year 2006, almost 48,400 juveniles were referred
to juvenile courts. Through a process called diversion, many juveniles avoid
formal court action by accepting consequences specified by court probation
officers or citizen boards. Other juveniles may be formally charged and ordered
to pay a monetary penalty and/or complete unpaid community services, be placed
on probation, or be committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections.
Juveniles in the court system may be required to participate in treatment
services or other programs designed to reduce the risk of re-offense. These
services and programs may include drug testing and substance abuse programs,
residential treatment programs, family therapy, counseling, professional
evaluations, and education services. Funding for these services comes mainly
from state funding, Medicaid, family contributions, and/or private insurance.
The Court, through the AOC, is responsible for managing state monies used for
these services, which totaled nearly $22.8 million in fiscal year 2007.
Supreme Court should improve assessment, planning,
and monitoring processes (see pages 11 through 24)
Under the direction of the Arizona Judicial Council, the AOC
should work with the county juvenile courts to improve the processes that
counties use to identify, plan for, and monitor the provision and effectiveness
of treatment services to juveniles. Auditors identified opportunities for
improvement in the following five areas:
-
Risk assessments—Although the Court requires
counties to complete a court-developed risk assessment for all juveniles who
are referred to county juvenile courts, some juveniles do not receive such
assessments. Data from the Juvenile Online Tracking System (JOLTS) showed
that for the 12,591 juveniles on probation in fiscal year 2006, 95 percent
had at least one completed risk assessment. However, juveniles should
receive a risk assessment each time they are referred to court and more than
67 percent of the 12,591 juveniles had at least one court referral for which
no risk assessment was conducted before disposition (outcome for a
juvenile), and 25 percent had at least one court referral for which no risk
assessment was completed at all. Without completed risk assessments, courts
lack important information to determine the appropriate level of supervision
for juveniles on probation and treatment services for a juvenile. Auditors
identified four ways that the AOC could work to improve counties' use of the
risk-assessment instrument—providing guidelines on the time frame in which a
risk assessment must be completed; providing guidance on when, and under
what circumstances, one risk assessment may be performed to address multiple
referrals; developing policies for using a juvenile's risk assessment to
help determine the appropriate level of supervision for juveniles on
probation and treatment services; and using the risk assessment to determine
which juveniles should receive further court assessments.
-
Needs assessments—Counties must also complete the
Court's needs assessment for all juveniles who have been adjudicated, but
many juveniles do not receive these assessments. JOLTS data showed that
nearly 40 percent of the 12,591 juveniles on probation in fiscal year 2006
had at least one instance for which no court-developed needs assessment was
conducted prior to disposition and nearly 46 percent had at least one
instance for which the Court's needs assessment was not completed at all.
Auditors' review of a random sample of 25 juvenile case files in Maricopa
and Pima Counties found that these counties were using other needs
assessment tools and methods. The AOC is working with representatives from
11 county juvenile courts, Arizona State University, and the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections to determine if its needs assessment tool
conforms to best practices from other states and agencies, or if assessment
tools from another state or agency can better meet its needs.
-
Strengths/protective factors assessments—Although
the Court has developed a strengths/protective factors assessment, it does
not require its use. The Court’s strengths/protective factors assessment
identifies positive influences and traits that may prevent a juvenile from
further involvement with the courts. However, auditors' review of files for
the 25 juveniles on probation in the two counties showed that 23 did not
receive the Court’s strengths/protective factors assessment. According to
the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, it is important to
use a formal structured assessment of both needs and strengths as the
foundation for the case plan.1 Therefore, the AOC should evaluate
and, if necessary, revise its strengths/protective factors assessment and
establish policy requiring this assessment’s completion.
-
Case plans—The AOC should also take steps to
improve the case plans developed for juveniles involved in the juvenile
justice system. The National Center for Juvenile Justice’s Desktop Guide
recommends developing such plans with specific goals, measurable behavioral
objectives, action steps, and completion dates.2 Although the
Court requires probation officers to develop case plans, it does not have
policies or procedures that guide how these plans should be developed or
used. Consequently, practices vary in the two counties that auditors
reviewed. For the 15 juvenile case files that auditors reviewed from
Maricopa County, plan development was sporadic; no formal plan was present
for nearly half of the instances where these juveniles were placed on
probation. In Pima County, although each of the 10 cases reviewed had a
section in the disposition report that provided information on needs and
treatment service recommendations, some of these sections lacked specific
goals, action steps, or time frames for accomplishing goals or completing
services. Therefore, the AOC should develop policies and procedures
regarding the development of case plans and the information these plans
should contain.
-
Case monitoring—The National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges’ Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines calls for active
monitoring of cases, and the states that auditors contacted require
reassessments of a juvenile's risk and needs at regular intervals.3
In Arizona, however, probation officers inconsistently monitor juveniles'
progress and do not consistently reassess their needs based on progress made
or update case plans. As a result, juveniles may not receive the services
they need. Auditors' review of the sample of the case files for 25 Maricopa
and Pima County juveniles on probation found that 5 of these juveniles had
not received treatment services as ordered by the juvenile court, services
that the Court typically funds. Additionally, AOC officials indicated that
the AOC does not centrally monitor services received through funding sources
other than the Supreme Court, and according to probation supervisors,
neither Maricopa nor Pima County has policies and procedures for conducting
reassessments to measure juveniles’ progress and/or reassess risk levels.
The AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures for monitoring
juveniles' progress and updating case plans accordingly.
Contracting process thorough, but AOC should
improve monitoring of treatment services vendors
(see pages 25 through 32)
The Supreme Court, through the AOC, has established a
thorough process to contract with treatment services vendors, but it should take
some steps to improve its monitoring of these vendors. The Court's comprehensive
contracting process includes such steps as creating a list of qualified vendors,
seeking input from counties on services needed, soliciting and evaluating
proposals, and awarding contracts. The Court also awards the contracts in such a
way as to allow for changing needs or circumstances during the contract
period—typically 5 years. Although the contracting process is comprehensive, the
AOC should improve its monitoring of its contracted vendors. Specifically:
-
Reviewing small vendors—Limited staff resources
prevent the AOC from conducting site visits of all vendors. The AOC focuses
its site visits on vendors that have submitted billings in a particular
service category of more than $20,000 during the previous calendar year.
Although vendors that may be providing many types of services, each costing
less than this amount, are generally not included in the monitoring site
visits, according to AOC officials, it may include vendors that fall
slightly below that figure. According to a 2001 review of this function, AOC
internal auditors recommended that the AOC consider periodically monitoring
smaller vendors, as it may be beneficial to independently validate
compliance with certain contract provisions, such as fingerprinting
employees and documenting service provision. Therefore, the AOC should
modify its approach for selecting vendors for site visits to conduct annual
site visits for a sample of its smaller vendors.
-
Ensuring timely correction of deficiencies—The AOC
sometimes takes months to respond to a vendor's corrective action plan to
resolve all of the issues in the monitoring report. The AOC should finalize,
implement, and follow its policies for the timely review and approval of
these plans.
Other Pertinent Information (see pages 33 through 36)
Auditors also collected information regarding the Interagency
Integration Coordination Initiative, a state-wide effort begun in 2006 to
coordinate treatment services between multiple state agencies for dependent and
delinquent juveniles and their families. Participants have worked to promote
greater integration of the services provided to children and families by state
systems, including behavioral health, juvenile justice, and child welfare
systems. Participants also identified four potential outcomes of the initiative,
as well as the associated strategies and action steps to reach these outcomes.
The potential outcomes range from sharing data to reducing cases of delinquent
and dependent juveniles within the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
1 Wiebush,
Richard G. Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Program Model and
Planning Guide. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, Juvenile Sanctions Center, 2003.
2 National Center for Juvenile
Justice. Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Pittsburgh,
PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2002.
3 Grossmann, David E. and Maurice
Portley. Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in
Juvenile Delinquency Cases. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges, 2005.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format
|
|
