JLARC staff: transfer of Department of Juvenile Justice to HHR not clearly beneficial

JLARC staff presented the results of a study examining whether moving the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) from the Secretary of Public Safety to the Secretary of Health and Human Resources would improve services for court‑involved youth. Britney Utz, who led the study, told commissioners that DJJ already provides a range of rehabilitative services similar to HHR programs and that DJJ’s current regional service coordinator (RSC) model — run through a contractor, Evidence Based Associates — has expanded provider access and delivered services more quickly in many cases.

"We found that DJJ already provides a range of rehabilitative services to youth, which are similar to HHR services and reportedly more accessible," Britney Utz said, summarizing JLARC’s central finding. She added later, "Because we aren't suggesting that a transfer should occur, we want to provide some alternatives for other ways to improve access to services and better ensure coordination between DJJ and HHR agencies." Utz stressed the recommendation was based on access to services and concerns about unintended consequences of a transfer.

The report observed that most youth supervised by DJJ are in the community (about three‑quarters on probation or parole), where DJJ uses a single statewide RSC contractor to coordinate services and subcontracts to local providers. The RSC model, established during DJJ’s 2016 transformation, expanded the number of service providers by over 50% since FY17 and requires services to be provided within five days of referral, staff said. Utz said that detained and committed youth receive on‑site services at facilities such as Bon Air JCC, but that Bon Air faces staffing challenges (a reported FY24 vacancy rate of about 51 percent among certain positions) that could affect program delivery.

Commissioners questioned whether HHR could provide equivalent coordination. Utz answered that HHR programs generally rely on locally operated community services boards (CSBs) and departments of social services rather than a statewide coordinating entity like DJJ’s RSC; she said JLARC found no evidence that HHR placement would ensure better access to services and noted HHR agencies often face capacity constraints and long wait lists.

JLARC also reviewed other states’ organizational choices and found no consistent relationship between whether juvenile justice sits in a public‑safety or HHR secretariat and rehabilitative outcomes. The analysis highlighted other drivers of improvement — leadership, clear policies, and funding to expand services — and warned that moving DJJ into a large HHR secretariat could risk diluting focus on public‑safety responsibilities, particularly in secure facilities where safety and security are prerequisites to treatment.

Instead of recommending a secretariat transfer, JLARC presented alternatives intended to achieve the transfer’s stated goals without changing DJJ’s placement. Those options include codifying a children's cabinet to coordinate child‑serving agencies across secretariats and increasing funding to embed CSB staff in court service units; JLARC staff characterized these as policy options for the General Assembly to consider rather than formal recommendations to change the code.

Following the presentation, lawmakers pressed staff on outstanding work: DJJ had been directed to evaluate programming for committed youth and submit a report by December 2024; Utz said that DJJ had told JLARC that the internal report was in final review at the governor’s office and that it should be released soon. JLARC staff also noted ongoing and planned related work, including an Office of the State Inspector General (OSIG) Bon Air study focused on staffing, quality of services, and safety at that facility.

The commission did not take formal action during the session; JLARC staff left the commission with policy options and data for lawmakers to consider in upcoming deliberations.