Summary Members present were: Devon Binion, Allison Fleming, Bob Greenlee, Stephan Pearson, Lori Rinehart, Carl Smith, Marvin Spencer, Miguel Trevino. Staff present: Janet Clayton, Dave Kuker, Dick Moore, Scott Musel, Eric Sage. In the absence of Michael Leiber, Dave Kuker conducted the meeting. Each person introduced himself/herself. DMC Resource Center RFA New from the last time the subcommittee met was the inclusion on page 3 of working with local decats to enhance their planning on DMC. Timeframe and grant period…From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. The successful applicant could access more than one year of funding. Page 5 (formerly program section) will now be "major activities." This change came about as a result of our August meeting regarding what we wanted from an applicant. Requirement for applicant content and format on page 7 includes the qualifications and experience section which was added. The plan section ties back to the major piece. The results matrix is included and has been used for several years. Evaluation and monitoring asks for a narrative and description of what their evaluation and monitoring plan will be. Budget forms are included. Grant criteria matches the major activities section or in program structure section. Most of the points will be in the plan itself. Most points will go to planning and policy section. The subcommittee was specific in the grant application on accountability to staff, attendance at the subcommittee's meeting, staff updates in addition to quarterly reports, and funding and allowable charges for a conference. Other DMC Activities DMC Diversion RFA The subcommittee then reviewed the diversion RFA that will be dropped in March of 2002. The subgroup that met began its discussion with the question of "What Do We Really Want With the Diversion RFA." DMC matrices are reviewed by the federal government regularly. Our task is to support a form of diversion programming that will impact on those matrices. The four counties with the highest number of referrals to detention are Polk, Woodbury, Black Hawk, and Scott. The small group that met concluded that it would be necessary to sit down with the Chief Juvenile Court Officers of those four counties (and other chiefs) to talk about alternatives to detention. The need is to impact on kids in locked settings or kids being processed in the juvenile court. We must seek the help of the juvenile court. Some chiefs wish to do something early on. Essential to get a commitment up front in the application process. A simple letter from the court may not be enough. Courts may need to be co-applicants. This is to be discussed with the chief at the ICN. Most points will be given to applicant who best demonstrates their impact on a specific decision point or locked setting. It was suggested that in addition to the $80,000 that exists currently, JJAC could apply for an additional amount in March of next year for a longer grant period. Technical assistance was helpful and it should be built into the application that the applicant work with the technical assistant. It is desirable to begin a model approach so that the same could be done elsewhere. The effort is to develop interest. Next meeting |