i Everyone, 

It is a privilege for me to serve as your President for the year 2010!  I am looking forward to the challenge and I hope to do as well as the President’s have before me.  As we turn the page from another year to the next, I would like us to move forward with a renewed focus on what benefits the Minnesota Corrections Association (MCA) brings to each of us both personally and professionally. 

Over the years, MCA has grown into one of the most recognized professional organizations in our field.  The trainings that we sponsor regionally throughout the year and during our Annual Fall Training Institute have drawn rave reviews from presenters and participants alike from across the country. As this year’s Fall Institute returns to the shores of Lake Superior, we are reminded that like the ships that sail through Duluth on their way to their destination, MCA continues to move forward to meet the goals and challenges of our profession, despite the constant winds of change and significant fiscal challenges.

As is the case with any organization, MCA’s success is driven by its members.  We are fortunate that we are comprised of a very diverse cross section of members in the corrections field.  From the field agents in the most remote corners of our state, to corrections officers and case managers in our prisons, to high ranking officials at the local, state, and federal levels, along with a growing number of retired corrections professionals, MCA encompasses the mass embodiment of Minnesota Corrections.

Members of our organization are exposed to vast networks of resources available at the touch of a phone, or an e-mail, or via the web to facilitate information exchange, experiences, and viable solutions brought about through cooperation and collaboration.  The Fall Training Institute is a prime example of an event that coordinates not just exceptional training opportunities, but also offers members to meet with people that they know, but oddly enough have never met.  How many times have there been occasions when a particular person’s name is familiar, because we’ve had some sort of professional contact with them, but we would have no idea how to pick them out of a line-up?  Our organization serves its members in ways that make it easy to utilize all the expertise that exists in the years of experience reflected in our membership.

As a professional organization in a public safety, people-oriented business, we are often confronted with dilemmas that will require collaboration through many levels of government, all under the watchful eyes of the people that we serve.  Being charged with such responsibility can often be challenging, however, members of our organization can be assured that with the support that a MCA membership offers, these challenges can be made more manageable.  We are all in this together.  Let’s continue to grow together to take on whatever challenges come our way.  As our membership grows, so does our power to succeed. I would like to see 2010 be a year to increase our membership numbers that mirror the numbers we had in the early 1990’s.  Please join me in getting the word out to non-members to join our Association again, or for the very first time, so that our network continues to expand as will the resources we are able to offer. Thank you!

Respectfully,
 

Mary Jo Caldwell,
MCA President

irst of all, I would like to say thank you to all those who supported me in voting me in as your President-Elect for 2011.  2010 will be a learning year for me, as I try to learn as much about my role within MCA & its’ committees, but to also support our President, Mary Jo Caldwell, in her efforts this year.  I am excited, as I know she has some great ideas for collaboration with multiple organizations, as well as having a true vision for strategic planning within MCA.  Her efforts will undoubtedly lay the groundwork for me, so next year I can work to fulfill the tenants of my campaign pledge of looking at cross-system collaboration for bettering our services in Corrections with our mental health population, as well as continuing the efforts for increasing our safety efforts for Correctional staff, and by continuing to educate Legislators about the hazards of our profession.  I look forward to working with the membership of MCA and am available to talk to anyone, and to bring forward any ideas or concerns that anyone may have going forward.

Terry A. Fawcett
MCA President-Elect 

s the Minnesota Legislature prepares to open their 2010 Session next Thursday, February 4th, in St. Paul, many Committee chairs have been very busy for the past several weeks holdings hearings to accept expert testimony on various issues and presenting many new bill proposals, in an effort to get a jump on an anticipated very busy Session. Obviously, the priority is going to be addressing the budget issues which we have clearly defined in recent reports to our membership. The $ 1.2 billion deficit is the tip of the iceberg as legislative leaders await the Supreme Court hearing on March 15th on the Governor's unallotment authority, the result of which could have an enormous impact on increasing the budget problems. Almost every legislator you talk to these days agree that resolving the budget problems is the highest priority. There at times appears to be a sense of cooperation among party leaders to resolve the budget problem, but the bottom line is that philosophical differences are going to make collaboration very difficult.

This is the "bonding year" of the biennium and everyone including the Governor talk about the need for job development, but their bonding priorities are quite different. The Governor looks for a bonding bill around $ 625 million, while DFL leaders are talking something in the range of $ 1 billion. and as in the past, the Governor is threatening to veto the entire bonding package if it far exceeds his spending/borrowing limits. So watch the action in the first few weeks of the Session as all parties are still saying they'd like to complete the bonding issues early in the Session before moving on to other things - easier said than done!

In regard to bonding, all of the major committees have been conducting hearings over the past few weeks listening to requests for bonding money, and there have been plenty of them. No action has been taken in the Committee hearings although all Committee members will now prioritize their bonding requests and then all will be forwarded to the finance divisions for a final proposal before the debate begins in earnest. The DOC bonding requests seeks about $ 80 million in funding, while the Governor's recommendation is $ 25.4 million, of which $ 8 million is for asset preservation. Also, the Department of Human Services has made a $ 89 million capital investment request to support the expansion of 400 new beds for the Moose Lake Sex Offender Program. Several legislators have questioned whether it's time to re-evaluate the state's sex offender sentencing guidelines feeling we just can't keep up this population increase year after year. So I'd expect there will be some interesting discussions on this in coming weeks.

Today, January 28th, Senator Mee Moua is holding a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Juvenile Detention Alternatives which has been a hot topic since last Fall. We can expect to see several bill introductions on these and other juvenile issues this Session. I am in the process of reviewing all the new bill introductions for possible inclusion in our 2010 legislative tracking system, which we have throughout the Session starting around Feb 11th and then with an updated version about every two weeks. MCA members are encouraged to contact me if you have bills of interest that you would like us to track.

Finally, let's complete this report to remind everyone of the "Capitol Day for Corrections" , an event sponsored by MACPO and MCA, which will be held on Thursday, February 18th at the Kelly Inn in St. Paul beginning at 9:00 AM We will be there to review our legislative agendas and to provide you with an update on legislative activities. Look for detailed information on the MCA webpage. This is a great opportunity to meet with your local legislator and find out what's happening in St. Paul. See you there!

Cal Saari
MCA Legislative Liaison
SISUwithSAARI@aol.com
218-969-0151

"A

re you talking to me?” “Well, yes I am.” “Will you kindly come over here for a moment and explain to me just what it is that you are doing; why you are doing it that way; and where you learned that particular technique that you are administering to that client? Um hmm, I see. Did you know that the way we think, feel and behave is perpetually influenced by a multitude of factors — some of which we are aware of and, some of which we are not? What I want you to do here is just take some time to contemplate what the driving power or forces are that are influencing you.”

The centerpiece of the professional helping relationship is, and has to be: the client-practitioner relationship. This relationship is the most important ingredient which influences change. Without this relationship, we can all pack up our marbles and go home.

A Stream of Influence
Let’s amuse ourselves with the influence idea for a moment. When I was born; where I grew up; who my family of origin is; how I fit into my family; how I was treated within my family; where I went to school; who my friends were/are; where I live; whether I’m married or not; have kids; what I do for fun; what my relationship to drugs and alcohol is; what my viewpoint toward recovery is; where I received my formal professional training; who my mentor is; where I work; what my title and position within the organization I work for is; what hours I work; how much sleep did I get last night; and did I get a speeding ticket on my way to work because I overslept and my car wouldn’t start this morning because I didn’t get to sleep until late last night because my child was sick and the furnace broke down; all influence who I am and how I perceive myself and others. I lug all of this baggage to the practitioner-client relationship every single day.

Did you know that the way we think, feel and behave is perpetually influenced by a multitude of factors — some of which we are aware of and, some of which we are not?

It is my contention and the professional literature concludes that the practitioner-client relationship should be regarded as being reciprocal. There’s no point in believing or behaving otherwise because the client brings with them an equal amount of ingredients to this relationship which also have a plethora of influences attached as well. As practitioners, we possess much power, authority and control in the practitioner-client relationship that can result in either resistance or inappropriate dependency depending on the forces in operation. Ideally, we want to find a common middle ground between these two hummers.

We must remember that the client is usually on our caseload resulting from being in some degree of trouble. They may feel overwhelmed, confused, angry, victimized, demeaned, inferior, inadequate or some other combination of angst or distress. These distressing feelings will undoubtedly influence the practitioner-client relationship.

Acceptance of Influence
Because our clients are involuntarily admitted to prison, jail, treatment by the courts, employer or family, the client is often constrained to accept our influence. They may regard us as possessing and exerting coercive control rather than help — regardless of our intent. The practitioner influences change in the client, the client’s environment and the interaction between the two. The big question is: “Do you know what the change-oriented procedures are that you possess and utilize?”

Practitioners must forever remain alert to the possibility that they are imposing their own values on the client. Remember, counseling is a manipulative process and it is usually not a mutual influence situation in that the practitioner examines the client’s attitudes, behaviors, etc., and not visa versa. Sure, the client probably examines our attitudes and behaviors, but so what? We’re the ones in control here. The client’s acceptance of our influence depends on our expertise.

Sometimes, practitioners may be impatient and intolerant of the client who does not meet with their expectations. This is usually the result of a misunderstanding or just merely a lack of skills. Practitioners and/or organizations that are sensitive to identifying and acknowledging such things as temperament, personality, learning style, social class, racial or ethnic differences, or any other special considerations that require consideration will go a long way towards providing quality services to their clients as well as bridge any gaps that might otherwise occur.

The professional practitioner influences change in the client, the client’s environment and the interaction between the two.

It is imperative that we individualize each client — this will have a positive effect on how the practitioner and client understands and behaves with each other. Burnout, or the threat of burnout, causes many practitioners to become psychologically distanced from the clients they serve.

Our role as a practitioner is also influenced by the bureaucratic organizations which often creates tension in our wanting to help the client vs. what the prevailing definition of our role is. The organization for which we work can negatively (or positively) impact or influence our attitude, enthusiasm and approach when the functions, structure, policies and procedures and resources of the organization constrain (or promote) our ability to provide the kind of help our clients need in order to improve the quality of their lives.

Clients as Teachers
With all that said, this is just a fraction of the assortment of factors that affect our role as a practitioner. Knowing how, when, where, why and with whom these factors influence us is the ideal way for us to control their negative effects on our client-practitioner relationships. Continuing education, self-education, and self-examination is essential for practitioners to enlarge and refine their knowledge about the crucial elements in the human service and corrections professions.

This knowledge offers the possibility of more flexible, adaptive, and responsive helping behavior. It is imperative that we interact with our clients and have them become our teachers. They will provide us with new information, correct our misperceptions and refine our skills. Anyone not willing to identify, acknowledge and explore these factors are hereby: “Under arrest for being under the influence! Watch you head, please as you’re getting into the back seat of the car. Thank you.”

here have been suggestions that Minnesota should lower the age at which we can certify youth into adult court. This is not a new issue. It comes up from time to time, usually on the heels of a serious offense committed at the hands of a very young adolescent.

As it now stands in the state of Minnesota, adolescents as young as fourteen years of age can be, under the right circumstances, certified and handled as an adult in our court system. The question that arises from time to time is whether to reduce the age at which this transfer can occur to thirteen years of age. The decision to transfer a serious juvenile case into adult court opens the door to the youthful offender’s being held accountable and dealt with in line with adult sentencing, including being sent to prison. Is this warranted, necessary or in the best interests of our communities?

The victims of serious juvenile crime are affected by juvenile crime as much as by crimes committed by adults. At the same time, if our ultimate goals are to enhance safety (short and long term), restore victims/community, hold offenders accountable and rehabilitate them, then we need to consider many variables. The urge to exact retribution and teach a lesson that, on the surface, appears to enhance safety, is tempting. Forwarding the youth to adult court appears to meet that need, yet, the ultimate long term gains to this are questionable.

The MCA Juvenile Justice Committee has researched this issue, and what follows is a summary of that research. While we maintain a formal position that opposes lowering the age of certification to thirteen years old, we have come to learn there are many factors to this important and complex decision. We invite your consideration of the information we’ve gathered.

Background
The juvenile justice system was founded on the premise that children are developmentally different from adults and thus are more amenable to treatment and rehabilitation. Research clearly shows a 13-year-old lacks the maturity and cognitive development of an adult. For example, cognitive decision making capacity by youth, particularly under the age of 15, is significantly lower than that of an adult. The final brain functions to develop are impulse control, reasoning, and advanced thought which are not fully developed until age 25. Given these significant differences, juveniles should not receive the same sanctions and interventions as adults. A 13-year-old-child requires specialized juvenile programming for successful rehabilitation. Some youth in the juvenile system are not mature enough even for certain juvenile programming, making adult programming certainly incompatible and inadequate. Despite the intent of the juvenile system and the above data, the current proposal extends the certification law to include the youngest and most immature of juvenile offenders.

National research shows juvenile certification to adult court is harmful to physical safety. Youth incarcerated in adult facilities are sexually assaulted five times more often, commit suicide eight times more often, are twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and are assaulted with a weapon 50% more often than youth held in juvenile facilities. In addition, incarcerating a child in an adult prison exposes the child to more hardened offenders.

There is evidence that children subjected to certification to adult court experience negative consequences from both the adult and juvenile court systems. The child receives neither the protections afforded to adults nor the care and treatment provided to children. In addition, convictions in adult court lead to collateral consequences which serve as barriers to rehabilitation: loss of civil rights (voting), disqualification from employment, and restrictions of opportunities such as military service and post secondary education financial aid.

Many studies show that certification to adult court does not serve as a deterrent to re-offend. Empirical evidence suggests certification laws have little or no effect on preventing youth from offending due to fear of existing certification laws. Youth who previously have been prosecuted as adults are, on average, 34% more likely to commit crimes than are youth retained in the juvenile justice system. They are more likely to re-offend, re-offend earlier, and to commit more serious subsequent offenses than those who remain in the juvenile system. Further, six large studies indicate recidivism is higher among juveniles convicted of specifically violent offenses and processed through adult criminal court compared to similar violent offenses processed through juvenile court. Experts believe this is due to the lack of focus on rehabilitation in the adult system, the stigmatization and other negative effects of labeling juveniles as convicted felons, the sense of resentment and injustice the juveniles feel about being tried and punished as adults, and learning criminal beliefs, attitudes and behaviors while incarcerated with adult offenders. It is clear that juvenile certification to adult court is counterproductive to reducing violence and increasing community safety.

Lowering the certification age would increase an already existing strain on the adult system. Increased recidivism and increased violence resulting from certifying juveniles to adult court would further increase costs and reduce community safety. According to a study of incarcerated juveniles, 78% of the offenders were released from prison before their 21st birthday and 95% of juvenile offenders were released from prison before their 25th birthday. The average time served in prison was 2 years and 8 months. Under the current law, the juvenile system allows a 13- year-old 6 years to receive specialized programming and services necessary for rehabilitation. Juvenile program evaluations indicate those that provide intensive community and family based interventions with delinquent juveniles have demonstrated reduced crime while proving to be cost effective. Each child prevented from engaging in repeat criminal offenses can save the community between 2.6 million and 4.4 million dollars.
Since the 1980’s, states have moved to get tough on juvenile crime by practices such as implementing certification laws. Some states implemented judicial, legislative and/or prosecutorial waivers which allow juveniles to directly enter into adult court without juvenile court review. However, research indicates states have reduced the scope of their certification laws. Twenty-five states have enacted laws allowing reverse certification, in which crimes which would normally be processed through the adult justice system are being handled in the juvenile justice system. Many states are reconsidering the minimum age of entry into the adult justice system. One state raised the minimum age of entry into the adult justice system from age 16 to 18. Further, between 1996 and 2003, the number of juveniles being transferred to adult courts decreased two-thirds, while the total number of juvenile court cases decreased by only 9%. Researchers believe this is due, in part, to the counter-deterrent effects of certification.

An alternative proposal to 13-year-old certification is to decrease the age at which juvenile offenders are eligible for EJJ, or extended juvenile jurisdiction. EJJ allows for revocation of EJJ status followed by a prison sentence. Lowering the age of eligibility for EJJ status would result in juvenile incarceration in adult facilities resulting in the consequences outlined above.

In an effort to translate research into legislation, the MCA Juvenile Justice Committee opposes lowering the age of certification to adult court to age 13. Further, the MCA Juvenile Justice Committee is not supportive of lowering the age of eligibility for extended jurisdiction juvenile designation.

Sources

Ash, P. (2006). Adolescents in Adult Court: Does the Punishment Fit the Criminal?. Journal of American Academic Psychiatry Law, 34(2), 145 - 149.

Hammond, S. (2008). Adults or Kids? State Legislatures, April, 31 - 33.

Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006, November 28). Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=25.htm

Molyneux, G. Message: Recommendation on Crime and Juvenile Justice. Washington D.C.: Hart Research Associates.

P, G. Topical Publications. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from www.ncjjservehttp.org/NCJJWebsite/publications.asp?action=view3&sort=1&pagenum=1&filter=31

Redding, R. Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov

Redding, R. (1999). Examining Legal Issues: Juveniles in Criminal Court and Adult Prison. Corrections Today, April, 92 - 124.

Schetky, D. (2003). Law and psychiatry. Juveniles standing trial: waiver to adult court. Journal of Psychiatry, 9(6), 465 - 468.

Young, M. C., & Gainsborough, J. (2000, January). Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: An Assessment of Trends and Consequences. The Sentencing Project, 1-97.

Young, M. C., & Allard, P. (2002, January). Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: Perspectives For Policymakers and Practitioners. The Sentencing Project, 1-59.

2010 student services committee

JENNIFER GUSE, Chairperson

» back to top

M

CA Student Services Committee continues their dedication to assist students who are seeking careers in the field of Corrections.  Committee members are also prepared to speak on behalf of MCA to higher education institutions and discuss careers or other facets of Corrections.  Current committee members include Chuck Ness, Rachel Miller, and Amy Waibel of the MN Department of Corrections; Mellissa Holthaus, Tessa MacDonald, and Nathan Miller of Wright County Court Services; Brandon Head and Joe Seminari, Sherburne County Probation Department; Molly Buckmister, Rock/Nobles Community Corrections; Sarah Miller, Blue Earth County Probation Department; Jessica Pelzel, Nicollet County Probation Department.  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Shannon Marks, our committee chair for the past three years, for all her hard work and commitment to the Student Services Committee.  As MCA’s current secretary, Shannon continues employment with the MN Department of Corrections and remains an active member of the committee.  Thanks again Shannon!

Mark the date!
We are highly anticipating the 10th annual Criminal Justice Career/Internship Fair on March 24, 2010 at St. Cloud State University’s Atwood Center.  This is a joint venture between MCA Student Services Committee and the Criminal Justice Association of St. Cloud State University.  Minnesota higher education students and students from surrounding states are invited to attend the fair and meet with professionals from all venues of the Criminal Justice System, including county, state, federal and private agencies and organizations.  With the ideas and help of NonProfit Solutions, we are eager for a generous student and vendor turn-out.  If you or your agency would like to be represented at the career fair, please feel free to contact me at jennifer.guse@co.blue-earth.mn.us or 507.304.4732.

In step with 2009, this year MCA will award one $500 college scholarship to a student member of MCA or a dependent of an MCA member.  Please see the MCA website at www.mn-ca.org for more information.  The 2009 MCA scholarship was awarded to Angela Determan, daughter of MCA member Karen Determan.  Congratulations Angela!

As the committee begins a new year, there are some changes occurring regarding student MCA membership fees.  Student MCA membership fees will remain at $30 this year, as in accordance with 2009.  However, due to increasing expense, in addition to the $30 membership fee, student members are now required to pay a $30 fee for the 2010 MCA Fall Institute.  The Fall Institute Conference continues to be a fantastic way for students to network with professionals and attend training to enhance students’ knowledge and experiences in Corrections.  Student Services will continue the student orientation and if time permits, offer a round table discussion to answer questions and provide accurate information regarding internship and employment opportunities in Corrections within Minnesota.  Please encourage your student volunteers and interns to take advantage of the Fall conference this year.

Thanks for your time.  We are always looking for new members and avenues to assist our student members and would love to hear your ideas! Please feel free to contact me or one of our active committee members, or check us out on Facebook!

congratulations to the 2009 MCA scholarship winner

SHANNON MARKS, Student Services Committee

» back to top

D

MCA and the Student Services Committee would like to congratulate Angela Determan on being awarded the 2009 MCA Scholarship of $500.  Angela is the daughter of MCA Member Karen Determan of Wright County Court Services. Angela is attending the University of Minnesota seeking a graduate degree in Public Policy. 

ttention current MCA members!!  Do you have a college student in the family? Are you a student member of MCA?   We all know how much tuition costs these days.  MCA is proud to announce that once again we will be giving one $500 college scholarship.  The applicant must be a dependant of a current MCA member or a Student Member of MCA and be attending an accredited two or four-year college, university or technical school. The selection criteria include academic achievement, community involvement and extracurricular activities.  Applicants must also submit an essay.  Applications and further information can be found at the MCA website at www.mn-ca.org or by contacting Jennifer Guse at jennifer.guse@co.blue-earth.mn.us or at 507-304-4732.   The deadline is September 1, 2010, so apply now!!

MACPO and MCA present “Probation Officer/Corrections Officer Day on the Hill”

» back to top

Wednesday, February 18, 2010 - 9:00 AM to 12:00
Best Western Kelly Inn – Coffee and Rolls
161 St. Anthony Ave. St. Paul MN.
(Across from the Capitol Grounds - next to Sears)

It is imperative that we make our voices heard this Legislative Session, as the budget deficit will put community corrections funding in grave peril.  Legislators need to hear your concerns on this important issue.  Do not miss this opportunity to meet with your local legislators.

Activities:

• Speakers will explain Minnesota’s legislative system, identify key legislative committees, and discuss effectively presenting your message to legislators.
• Representatives from the MACPO and MCA Legislative Committees will present their 2010 Legislative Platforms and Initiatives for discussion.

• Committee members from MACPO and MCA will assist you in meeting with your local legislators by directing you to their offices, providing background information on key corrections issues, providing copies of organization platforms.
• Tours of the Capitol are available.
• Committee hearings which may be taking place are accessible for your observation.

RSVP to Sherry Munyon via email:  SMunyon@CapitolAccess.us

Please include your county, the name of your local legislators, and your legislative districts so we can notify them that you will be visiting.  If you don’t know their names or districts, go to www.leg.state.mn.us and click on “Who Represents me?”.  There will be no legislative appointments made for the afternoon.

For those of you who cannot attend this important event, we ask that on this day, you email your local legislators with your message.

We all know it’s unlikely that any of us are going to get rich working in Corrections. So why do we do it? I have heard answers ranging from “It’s a steady pay check” to “I want to make a difference in someone’s life.” Certainly different motivations, fortunately most Corrections professionals fit into the latter or they don’t last long in this business. Unfortunately however, many of these folks go unrecognized for most if not all of their careers until they retire at which time their friends and colleagues gather around and tell them what a great job they did and how much they will be missed. Sad, but wait, there is another option. I am offering you an opportunity to change all of that through the annual Minnesota Corrections Association MCA Awards process.

Each year, the MCA Awards Committee offers members an opportunity to nominate one of those special people or programs that has made a difference in the field of Corrections. We all know them, they are the ones that stand out when we think of the best we have to offer. The person or program that consistently outperforms all others and goes the extra mile to ensure that the offender is treated with respect while still held accountable. Just look around and you can find them throughout the state, one may be working in the office next to you, or it may be a program in your home town that has positive results with almost all of the offenders referred to them. If you are interested in seeing who some of these people and programs are, go to the awards section of the MCA web site. There you will find a list of past recipients for each of the award categories offered at our annual fall institute. You will note that many are current leaders in Corrections and those that have since retired, left a lasting impression on how we do our jobs today.

Keep this in mind as you go about your work over the next few months. Members will be receiving notice when the MCA Awards are open for nomination this coming summer. Please take the time to recognize someone or some program that you know is deserving of recognition. As I said, we all know them and all it takes is a few minutes of your time to see that they get the recognition they deserve.

MCA invites you to join a committee you have interest in!  Please go to our web site and see each committee’s mission and goals. Each forum in 2010  will highlight a committee.  This month is the Juvenile Justice committee!

MCA Mission Statement: 

The mission of the Minnesota Corrections Association is to promote the professional development of individuals working in all aspects of the corrections field and to promote ethical and just correctional practices.

Juvenile Justice Committee:
Chair:  Shelley McBride

Overall Committee Goals:

1. Work closely with legislative committee on pending legislative action as it relates to juvenile justice and respond with position statements (with Board approval) when necessary.
2. Keep the Board appraised of juvenile justice issues and provide information needed to address correctional leadership in the field.

2010 Goals: The Juvenile Justice Committee of MCA is committed to working closely with the MCA Board and with the MCA Legislative Committee to keep them apprised of juvenile justice issues. We endeavor to represent MN Juvenile Justice professionals in this process and promote best practices in our field.

In 2010 we will:

1. Continue to engage active committee participation that broadly represents Minnesota juvenile justice professionals. We currently have 16 members on our committee with average meeting attendance at 9-10. We hope this year to continue to maintain this level of involvement and to expand it somewhat to include more residential/treatment personnel.
   


2. Expand knowledge of legislation and statewide initiatives that pertain to juvenile justice and participate in the shaping of the policies/recommendations. Provide legislative position papers and testimony as needed/requested by the MCA legislative liaison and to continue to do outreach to support our positions. This year we’re expecting to be active with legislative initiatives related to: Stays of Adjudication changes, juvenile data management, Risk Assessment Inventory, certification of youth into adult court, Adam Walsh Act. We will remain active in the Juvenile Justice Coalition, representing MCA on the steering committee, executive committee and legislative group.
   


3. Remain current about juvenile justice issues through effective research and communication, formulating informational updates as needed. We will be selecting topics of interest to research; these are likely to include youth and family violence, expungement procedures/policies, juvenile certification laws. We will engage speakers on these topics as deemed important and will expand our use of the MCA website for information dissemination. We hope to update and expand our juvenile resource directory.

about FORUM

FORUM is published six times a year by the Minnesota Corrections Association, a nonprofit professional association incorporated in Minnesota. Articles submitted by our membership do not express the views of MCA or the board of directors.

Articles may be submitted to FORUM editor Joyce Wong (Stearns County Community Corrections) at joyce.wong@co.stearns.mn.us or by fax at (320) 656-6600. Articles should not be of the nature of a commercial solicitation of products or services; rather, they should be informative on topics of interest to MCA membership at large.