|
................................................................................................................................
(Lansing State Journal -
February 5, 2006)
Ingham juvenile justice system moving forward
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
Three years have passed since
Ingham County voters approved the Juvenile
Justice Millage to detain and treat disturbed and delinquent youths.
Before the millage, the Family Court had programs in place for juveniles
passing through the court system, but it was time to make some
improvements. The Youth Center, a 24-bed secure detention facility, was
often overcrowded. There were more than a dozen youths in out-of-state
detention facilities at a given time. The range of detention and
non-detention programming was insufficient. Public and private services
related to substance abuse, sex offender services, anger management, and
family services needed to be used more efficiently.
Now, the annual millage funding makes it possible to broaden the range
of programming (what we call the continuum of care) so that juveniles
receive sanctions and services that are appropriate for their situations
and they are not placed in settings that are too severe. Most of the
annual millage funding is matched with State Child Care Funds so our
millage dollars go twice as far.
Some of the enhancements that have been implemented in the past three
years include adding staff to improve security and treatment at the
Youth Center, contracting for more non jail-like detention/treatment
programming for both girls and boys, and adding staff to some of the
existing non-detention and home-based programs.
A new assessment process was implemented to ensure that juveniles are
placed in the most appropriate programs. The assessment involves
evaluating each juvenile's family circumstances, school and work issues,
offense history, behavior and personality, substance abuse history,
leisure activities and other factors. The data can also used to analyze
the range of programming in the system. It helps the Courts and the
County determine how many juveniles need secure detention (a jail-like
setting), how many need detention but not in a jail-like setting, and
how many need day treatment programs where they remain in their homes
and report daily for treatment and services.
The enhancements to our juvenile justice system yielded some positive
results. The Youth Center no longer experiences overcrowding. The
girls' detention facilities offer programming that is more appropriate
for girls. The assessment process is more thorough. However, many
program improvements are still needed. Juveniles continue to be placed
out-of-state, but the goal is to replace (soon) most of the out-of-state
placements with appropriate programming in the community, some of which
may be alternatives to detention. An ongoing assessment of the system
is underway, and the County will continue to adjust programming so that
it is always getting better.
The Ingham County Board of Commissioners, working in conjunction with
the Family Court and local service providers (mainly the Youth Violence
Prevention Coalition) has proceeded to use the millage funds very
cautiously. Our pace has been measured, but it is important to bring
the juvenile justice community together, using the funds wisely to
develop a juvenile justice system that improves the lives of juveniles
in Ingham County.
TOP
OF PAGE
...............................................................................................................................
(Towne Courier -
October, 2004)
The 2005 County Budget Nears
Completion
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
Every
year as Autumn approaches much of the governmental decision-making and
news topics revolves around budgeting. Local, county, state and federal
governments must finally get their plans and numbers in place for the
coming fiscal year. The goal, which is statutorily required at some
levels, is to match expenditures with revenues (with the exception of
the Federal government). It is no secret that the past few budget years
have necessitated difficult budget decisions at all levels of
government.
Watching
the various levels of government deal with the good and the bad times
for quite some time, I have come to the opinion that the cyclical
loosening and tightening of the fiscal belt buckle is a good thing. In
the tightening mode, commissioners and legislatures are forced to
scrutinize the budget, to review how efficiently the government is
operating and to make it even more efficient. The down side is that
during these times there is a tendency to be very cautious about
implementing any new programs, even those that may lead to long-term
savings. We are only concerned with getting through a tight budget
year. The periods with more discretionary resources allow us to make
improvements that benefit the community for years to come.
Thus,
the ebb and flow of the budget cycle can be beneficial as long as there
is strong fiscal planning, which is in place in Ingham County. During
the early part of the budget process Fiscal Year 2005 was evaluated to
determine the anticipated relationship between expenditures and
revenues. It was obvious that we were in a “tightening” period, so the
next few months involved much work and tough decisions to find areas to
contain expenditures or to increase revenues where appropriate and
acceptable. Expenditures were reduced by delaying some hiring and
purchasing, making many line item reductions throughout the departments,
reducing temporary employees and overtime, and holding back on capital
expenditures. Grants from other levels of government and other sources
were explored and obtained.
The
County maintains a healthy reserve to allow it to receive lower bond
rating and other benefits, yet a “layer” in the reserves can be used and
replenished periodically without negatively impacting the bond rating to
deal with unexpected shortfalls at the end of the budget year. This
part of the reserve is an element of the overall method to keep our
County fiscally sound and maintaining it is an important part of the
budget process.
Revenue
sharing from the state has been an ongoing issue that seems to come up
during the last few weeks of the annual state budget cycle which ends in
September. Revenue sharing is the money that the state “shares” with
the local governments and counties to help defray the cost of the many
services that the state mandates the local governments to provide. It
is not a handout, but a form of budget assistance for State mandated
services. The County is required to finance the operation of the
Circuit, District and Probate Courts, the County Jail, public health and
mental health services, record-keeping related to vital statistics and
properties, and it must provide resources for crime prosecution and law
enforcement and conduct elections. In total, about 80% of the County’s
programs are mandated by State law. About one-tenth of the County’s
general fund comes from revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is a critical
source of revenue for the County and it is very appropriate that the
State provide this source of revenue. This year, it appears that the
State will continue to provide revenue sharing, although with some
bookkeeping juggling that requires a shift of county property tax
collection to the summer.
Revenue
sharing was initiated to help county and local governments provide the
services in a way that best meets the needs of a particular community.
It allows us to match the character of the community to the programs and
avoid one size fits all services. Too many years have passed with
revenue sharing on the chopping block at the State level with local
services endangered, only to be saved, at least partially, at the last
minute. Hopefully, at the State level, a more permanent approach for
providing revenue sharing to counties can be developed for the future.
TOP
OF PAGE
...............................................................................................................................
(Towne Courier -
September, 2004)
On Local Diplomacy
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
During the past session of the
Ingham County Board, several county issues called for strong doses of
diplomacy. One memorable example was the Board’s review of the animal
control department policies last year. This issue brought many people
out to speak on the subject at several committee meetings and even to
demonstrate in front of the courthouse prior to an emotional county
board meeting that went late into the evening. After much debate and
study, the Board modified some of the animal control department
policies, stopped the sales of shelter animals to Class B research
dealers and formed an advisory board to the Animal Control Department.
Other county issues regularly call for diplomacy as many individuals
address county topics with a variety of opinions and viewpoints.
We can expect that on almost any
issue, not everyone will be in complete agreement (sometimes not even
close), and opinions can be strong and emotional. When diplomacy
appears during the process, it is bound to make a contribution. We
probably all agree that the politicians making decisions about our
county need to be knowledgeable about county departments and programs
and any agencies that deliver services to county residents, relative
laws, and funding sources,. However, with all the personalities,
opinions and agendas of the individuals and groups involved, diplomacy
is what allows the work to move forward. Now, let me try to explain
what I call “local diplomacy.”
Serving on a sixteen-member
commission and working with the public results in many types of verbal
interactions. I believe that the diplomacy “basics” for all
interactions include the following three points. First, people trying
to work together or communicate must have a basic understanding of each
other and know the facts of a situation as much as possible. Good facts
and understanding make it easier to consider how issues can ever be
resolved. Second, the way that people address each other is critical.
It is important to not discuss matters in straight-on opposition.
Points of agreement should be included with the points of
disagreement—in sincerity, of course. And third, the encounter should
leave the other party with some dignity!
Whether the communications are
between county commissioners and activist groups, Democratic and
Republican commissioners, commissioners and county administrators or
other combinations, the basics are the same. It is probably impossible
that every communication with an individual or group of individuals is
positive and all sides cannot be totally content, especially when there
are very differing points of view. Disagreements are expected and
acceptable, but it is important to avoid creating bad feelings and
anger. Sometimes we have interactions where individuals (hopefully not
a commissioner) lacks facts or is not particularly rational. In such
situations the communication is probably not very productive. Still, it
is possible to exchange ideas and leave the other individual with some
dignity.
It is probably unrealistic to think
that anyone can be diplomatic at all times, but I think it is important
to give it a try. Working as a county commissioner, a natural,
habitual, sincere helping of diplomacy, is really needed for good
policies and programs that affect the entire community.
While I could extend a discussion
of diplomacy to the national and international level, i.e., the need for
extensive knowledge and understanding, the need to not deal head on with
others, and the importance of leaving others with some dignity, I
believe I will end here and turn around at the “county line”.
TOP
OF PAGE
...............................................................................................................................
(Towne Courier -
June, 2004)
The Juvenile Justice Millage Enhances
Programs for Youths
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
In November of 2002, Ingham County
residents passed the Juvenile Justice Millage to provide funding for an
improved juvenile justice system. The enhancements to the system are
being implemented. The Ingham County Commissioners working with the
Family Court judges and professionals are adding programs that I believe
will serve the youths of our county well. As a county commissioner
serving on the Judiciary Committee, I have taken part in the ongoing
process to expend the millage funds in a careful manner, and I would
like to provide an update on the system improvements.
The Juvenile Justice Millage
generates about $3.5 million dollars annually. Although this seems like
a large amount of funding, the cost of treatment and detention for
disturbed youths is very high. In comparison, the cost to the community
is even higher when delinquent youth do not improve their behavior and
later end up in the adult corrections system. More importantly, we want
the children in our community to be safe, well cared for, and happy and
not subject to the pain that comes from delinquent behavior. We are
also concerned for the individuals who might be harmed by the actions of
delinquent youth. I feel that voters supported the Juvenile Justice
Millage in 2002 because they shared these sentiments.
The purpose of the funding was “to
increase Ingham County’s capacity to detain and house juveniles who are
delinquent or disturbed and to operate new and existing programs for the
treatment of such juveniles.” The youth detention facility (The Youth
Center) was usually full to capacity and sometimes over capacity. Some
youths were sent out of state to more costly facilities. The services
offered to youth going through the court system were not broad enough in
scope to meet the varied needs of the youths.
Court professionals felt for a long
time that there was not sufficient long-term tracking of juveniles
through our system to determine which programs were successful. There
was also a general consensus that the system lacked a broad range of
treatment/detention choices so that youths could be placed in programs
that would meet their individual needs more effectively, resulting in
fewer repeat offenses.
A study of our existing juvenile
system, performed by the University of Cincinnati, on behalf of the
County, reiterated these opinions and reinforced the notion that if
youths are not appropriately placed according to their level of risk,
severity and type of problems, their problems may actually be made worse
rather than improved. To address this issue, the way that youths are
assessed, or evaluated, as they go though the court system was totally
revamped in order to make sure that youths are placed appropriately and
track the efficiency of the programs. A new assessment tool was
obtained, and court professionals were trained to use it.
New programs have been added to the
system so that juveniles can be housed and provided treatment according
to the severity of their situation. The County had the high security
Youth Center, but moderate security facilities were very much needed.
It was also recognized there was a growing demand for more girls
programs. To address these needs, the county contracted for 24 beds and
treatment at Highfields for boys. Funding was approved for 12
additional beds for girls, including 6 beds at a transitional facility
where they gradually adjust to being able to return to their families
and schools or live on their own if they are old enough. Proposals have
been received for the girls’ facilities. Additional treatment and
behavior management programs have been added to the 24-bed Youth
Center. A psychologist was added to the system to improve the County’s
ability to treat the youths. Other smaller enhancements to the system
have also been made.
There are some established programs
for youths with less severe problems that operate in the home and family
setting, at after-school facilities or at vocational training sites.
Some programs deal with substance abuse, anger control, interpersonal
skills and other behavioral issues. As we continue to enhance the
juvenile justice system in our county, using the funds that residents
have so generously provided, we will look more at treatment programs for
all levels of risk or severity and evaluate where there are still unmet
needs in the system.
Bringing the judges, the court
professionals, the commissioners, community groups and agencies together
has been a huge, time consuming task. At times, I have been frustrated
along with many others. Still, looking at the programs we have chosen
to date and the adjustments we have made to the system, I feel we are
moving the right direction. I welcome any comments or suggestions since
this is an ongoing process. My phone number is 349-7652 and my county
commissioner email address is
dholman@ingham.org.
TOP
OF PAGE
...............................................................................................................................
(Towne Courier -
April, 2003)
Ingham
County’s Important Role in Protecting the Environment
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
With all the
agencies and groups that have a hand in caring for our environment,
someone might wonder how anything remotely organized takes place at all.
But, it does. The
federal and state governments set the basic direction, run many programs,
and delegate much of the work to county and local governments.
Other entities such as Tri County Regional Planning, non-profit
community agencies, volunteer groups, businesses, and individuals fill in
the gaps. Our environmental
“network” accomplishes what it does with funding from various levels
of government--either direct or through grants, volunteer groups,
businesses, and individuals. There
is much yet to be done to ensure a healthy planet, but a great deal of
activity is ongoing.
Ingham County
is both required and encouraged by the state and federal government to
perform a host of environmental activities.
State laws require the county to administer the Drain Code and the
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act.
The County Drain Commissioner is responsible for these activities.
The County Environmental Health Department conducts water sampling,
inspects small water systems, septic tanks, and landfills, permits wells,
and performs other “statutory” services to protect health,
groundwater, and our environment in general.
There are many other secondary activities related to environmental
protection that the county must perform, such as getting DEQ permits and
following environmentally sensitive construction practices when building
and maintaining roads. Other
activities, such as wellhead protection, are delegated to agencies such as
the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission.
The
county also takes part in non-mandated environmental efforts such as
recycling, energy use reduction education, greenbelt and open space
planning, regional land use planning, watershed management, and a county
park system (over 900 acres). In
addition to the groups and offices mentioned above, the county provides
some funding to community agencies, such as Urban Options, MSU Extension,
and the Soil Conservation District, in order to offer other environmental
services that the County feels are needed in the community.
As we
celebrate both County Government Week and Earth Day, I thought it would be
timely to reflect upon Ingham County’s important role in taking care of
our environment. As a county
commissioner, I will work with my fellow commissioners to ensure that we
meet our statutory responsibilities related to the environment, fill in
areas that need attention, and address environmental issues and ideas that
are raised by county residents.
TOP
OF PAGE
................................................................................................................................
(Towne Courier -
March, 2003)
Commissioner
Provides Recycling Web Page
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
As a community, we have improved our recycling skills over the past two
decades. In the 80s and 90s, the Recyclers of Ingham, Eaton, and
Clinton Counties showed the way and now many local residents are in the
recycling mode. Meridian
Township, East Lansing, Granger Recycling and many other public and
private entities are part of the process.
There
is still a long way to go. We can still make much progress in waste reduction and
use our natural resources even more efficiently.
Recycling is a key component to waste reduction.
Not only does recycling reduce the volume of waste that needs to be
“stored,” it also provides useable materials by recovering them from
our discarded items.
So why aren’t we already great recyclers? The problem is that recycling can often be an elusive job
with difficult to find recycling sites.
In addition, the amount of effort involved discourages recycling.
At least recycling standard items has become fairly common.
There are drop-off sites and curbside recycling for glass,
newspaper, plastic, aluminum and other standard items.
More difficult items to recycle are the non-standard items, such as
appliances, batteries, clothing, electronics, some papers, and household
hazardous waste.
For the non-standard items,
I offer some assistance. I
have set up a local recycling information page on my county commission
website at www.dianneholman.com.
The page includes recycling locations for items such as appliances,
clothing, electronics, paint, etc. As
a County Commissioner and employee of the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, I
often hear of recycling opportunities in this area that I can pass along
to others. My list is just a
start, and I am hoping that residents who know of other recycling
opportunities can provide me with more information to share with everyone.
There are many good general recycling
websites for Michigan (try www.earth911.org, for instance); however, not
all of the locations are available to individuals.
My Commission district is northern Meridian Township, however,
locations listed would be close for all of Meridian Township, East Lansing
and Williamston. Please visit
my website, go to the recycling page, and we can share our information and
all try to generate less waste.
Dianne
Holman, Ingham County Commissioner (Northern Meridian)
TOP OF PAGE
................................................................................................................................
(Towne Courier - November, 2003)
Residents Can
Provide Valuable Input about County Roads
Guest Column by Dianne Holman
As a county commissioner, I hear more
comments from residents about county roads than any other issue.
Residents' readiness to express concern about speed limits, traffic
patterns, traffic lights, and other aspects of our county roads is not
surprising. The road system
is the county service that most people use on a daily basis. Residents observe the good and bad road
characteristics—particularly the bad ones—on the way to work, to
schools, to shopping and near their homes.
Drivers are familiar with certain stretches of road and can provide
useful, often critical, comments on what works and what does not. The non-driver point of view is also important, and
individuals can offer insightful suggestions because they live by county
roads and bike and walk on sidewalks and bikeways that run alongside and
cross county roads.
Government entities that have the means to
make improvements to our road system should treat the public as a valuable
resource and not an obstacle. For
years, the Michigan State Police and county road commissions were the only
two agencies that could make decisions regarding speed control signs,
devices and signals on county roads.
This year, state legislation added language to the Michigan Vehicle
Code so that township boards could also take part in determining speed
limits and locating speed limit signs on county roads.
Putting township boards in the decision-making loop is a good move.
Their new role should offer residents another access point into the
process.
The procedure for changing speed limits and
signage involves conducting a traffic study.
The most common study, which is overused in my opinion, involves
determining the 85th percentile speed.
The State Police and the county road commission conduct a study to
determine the speed that 85 percent of the drivers travel at or below in
light to moderate traffic conditions.
The philosophy behind the test is that most drivers drive
reasonably at that speed and that the 85th percentile speed is
the speed that results in a smooth, safe flow of traffic that is also
enforceable. It is a
useful tool for determining speed limits; however, it should only be one
of many tools used. More
often, it is used singularly to decide how speeds should be set, whether
on a new portion of road or on existing roads.
Other criteria must be considered in
determining the appropriate speed limit for a county road.
For one thing, the 85th percentile speed study focuses
on the driver and on the speed at which the driver feels comfortable and
safe. What about activity
outside of the vehicle? As
community and transportation planning evolves in the future—and it is
changing—community and road designs will be developed that promote
bicycling and walking. The
traditional 85th percentile speed study places far too much
emphasis on the driver’s point of view.
Other information must be included in a traffic study, such as
enforcement and compliance data, crash data, changes in land use, and
PUBLIC INPUT.
As an example, picture a road that
has a curve and a speed limit sign that has been there for many years.
It is a road that people have driven in the same way for decades.
Over time, a couple of new subdivisions have been added along the
road as well as a church. Paved
shoulders for bikers and a crosswalk have also been added to the roadway.
A study is done and the 85th percentile speed study
shows that driving habits have not changed.
The speed study should not be limited to the 85th
percentile speed data because it is very possible that long established
driving habits and an existing sign have put bias into the study.
Other criteria must also be examined and included in the study.
However, too often, other criteria are not given much
consideration, including comments received from the public.
Residents
should be able to offer suggestions and make comments related to speed
limits, traffic control devices, and even road design.
This subject matter is not too technical for residents—they use
the roads day in and day out and understand how the system works.
However, residents must appreciate that if the road commissions and
the townships receive their input with open arms (or ears), positive
response cannot always be expected. What
is important is that input is taken seriously and there is a mechanism for
keeping track of input so that it can be used at any time in the process
to improve roads and set appropriate speed limits.
Equally important is the mutual respect from residents for members
of boards and commissions who are trying to work with them.
In 2004, one of the Ingham County
Road Commissioner seats will become available.
The main function the county commission has with respect to the
road commission is that the county commission appoints the road
commissioners. There
are three road commissioners, each serving a six-year term.
Once appointed, the road commissioners operate autonomously.
Appointment allows the commissioners to balance the seats by
geographic distribution and philosophy.
For geographic reasons, it is most likely that a commissioner will
be appointed from the more part of the county next since the two incumbent
road commissioners both live in Meridian Township.
As a county commissioner, I will vote on
the road commission appointment, and it is important to me that road
commissioners value public participation.
Road commissioners should promote respectful reception of public
input throughout the road commission.
Hopefully, the new legislation will also bring the township boards
and residents into the process.
There are many improvements to look forward to—not only in our
roads but also in the process.
Dianne
Holman, Ingham County Commissioner (Northern Meridian), Civil
Engineer
TOP
OF PAGE |
