No harm, no foul! An interesting case of questionable, at best, practice regarding waiver to adult court.

Now, here’s an interesting (and seemingly improper) practice – inviting the prosecuting attorney to a human services (Walworth County) department staff meeting to discuss what the department’s recommendation should be related to waiver to adult court for a youth. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just issued an opinion in a case (State of WI vs. Tyler T) ruling that this apparently did not violate the rights of Tyler T (age 15 at the time of the offense(s)) or constitute some form of ex parte communications that would render the department’s report inadmissible.  Interestingly, neither Tyler T. nor his attorney were invited to participate in that formal meeting, and even then in the end the department opted not to make a recommendation, one way or the other, related to waiver.

The details of the offense are of some interest in a case like this, but more to the point for this post is the issue of what is proper practice in terms of both gathering information and/or communicating information to other parties, particularly the adversary attorneys.  What should be the department procedure for conducting an independent investigation and making a recommendation in a waiver case – and really in all cases? The role of the department is to assess risks and needs and make an independent recommendation to the court as to the outcome that best meets the goals of the juvenile code, particularly regarding what is most effective in meeting the youth’s needs in a way that reduces the likelihood of reoffending behaviors.

Aside from the fact that all research points to better outcomes from juvenile court than adult court, I have to reflect the concern that too often the relationships and practices that develop in the court process can overshadow the difficult independent role that social workers are supposed to play. Social workers should take pride in their important role in the court process, even as we may recognize that the process and the inherent power attorneys have in the legal setting can sometimes skew that role in ways that harm the outcomes of a given case as well as undermine the process. It’s not clear from this case whether this was an exception to the process or how it came about – but, it does seem clear, as the minority opinion points out, that allowing one party substantially different access to the process is patently unfair.   By Jim Moeser

Seven Reasons for the Big Drop in Family Child Care

Our attentive readers responded to our question: What do you think is causing this significant decline in regulated family child care services?

Here are the seven top reasons our readers thought were contributing to the decline of regulated family child care programs.

1.  More requirements and tighter enforcement
Readers wrote about the new requirements in YoungStar, more regulatory requirements, and more aggressive enforcement of regulations as top reasons for the decline in family child care.  Readers indicated that:
•    The upfront cost to improve quality was more than providers could handle;
•    Compensation was not keeping up with the cost of improving quality under YoungStar;
•    Many family child care providers do not have formal education, and it would be difficult to handle getting college credits, with minimal payoff ;
•    The 5% reduction in Wisconsin Shares payment for 2-star programs was driving family child care out of business
While these factors are undoubtedly having an impact, the decline in family child care was pronounced before many of these requirements were applied.

How is it Working for Children with Disabilities?

by the Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations

The biennial budget and subsequent action by the legislature get mixed reviews by parents of children with disabilities. Among the most fragile families in Wisconsin are those with a child with a significant disability. While these families often have extraordinary needs that require supports and services that go beyond what a family can meet on their own, the legislature and administration provided little relief.

Despite a pattern of bipartisan consensus by previous legislatures to prioritize the needs of children with significant disabilities, the current legislature froze funding for all long-term care for people with disabilities, including children. The legislature preserved overall Medicaid benefits for children with disabilities, but took no action to reduce extraordinary wait lists for long-term supports.

Is it Working for Technical College Students and Their Families?

Thanks to the deep recession and anemic recovery, there has been unprecedented demand for classes in the state’s technical colleges. Record numbers of young people recently out of high school and older displaced or underemployed workers are looking to Wisconsin’s technical college system as their best option for getting education and training that will qualify them for well-paid jobs.

Businesses have also shown keen interest in the technical education system, as they grapple with a mismatch between the types of skills they are looking for in employees and the qualifications of Wisconsin’s jobless workers.

Although the result has been record or near record enrollment, a number of Wisconsin’s technical colleges have had to reduce classes or local services. Most of the 16 colleges continue to invest in new services and courses most critically in demand, but they can only do so by raising tuition or by cutting other offerings.

Is It Working for Underinsured Kids and Families?

Most children and families in Wisconsin are covered by private health insurance, but many people will tell you that the private insurance market is not working for children and families. Too many find themselves underinsured – losing their coverage when they need it most because they have cancer and hit their annual limit on coverage, or finding that due to a preexisting condition, the insurance they have doesn’t cover the care they need.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides an opportunity to remedy some of these abuses in the insurance industry, but it’s up to states to implement many of the provisions. Unfortunately, Wisconsin has been slow and taking a bare minimum approach to ACA reforms, or ignoring the law altogether.

Is It Working for Families with an Unemployed Parent?

The national economy has been slow to emerge from the Great Recession, and Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that Wisconsin has had the slowest rebound in employment of any state during 2011 and 2012. Yet despite the ongoing need for assistance for those desperately seeking work, the last Wisconsin budget bill cut benefits that are intended to help unemployed and underemployed workers and their families. Those cuts include the following:

Unemployment insurance (UI) benefits – The budget bill has reduced UI benefits for jobless workers by more than $41 million per year by initiating a one-week waiting period before the newly unemployed become eligible for benefits. For a worker who is unemployed for ten weeks, the waiting period amounts to a 10 percent cut in benefits. Changes made by Congress are having even greater effects for the longer-term unemployed, because fiscal conservatives insisted upon phasing out federally-funded Extended Benefits. (See “Honey, I Shrunk the Unemployment Benefits.”)

Cover the Uninsured Week – BadgerCare is Working for Wisconsin Families

This week, we celebrate Cover the Uninsured Week with our colleagues at Covering Kids and Families – WI (CKF). With more than 525,000 Wisconsinites uninsured, including 65,000 children, we have more work to do in our state. Our strong BadgerCare program is a cost-effective and quality way to reach many uninsured residents, but it doesn’t cover everyone. Stay tuned to our “Is it Working for Kids?” series next week, when we’ll examine how health reform can make further improvements to coverage in Wisconsin. For now, let’s talk about what we know is working – BadgerCare.