DATE: Thursday, November 20, 1997           TAG: 9711200496

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B2   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: BY LEDYARD KING, STAFF WRITER 

DATELINE: RICHMOND                          LENGTH:   58 lines

PROGRAMS FOR TROUBLED YOUTH FACE TROUBLES LAX OVERSIGHT BLAMED FOR MISPLACING SOME YOUNGSTERS IN STATE'S CARE SYSTEM.

Five years ago, the state legislature set up one of the nation's first comprehensive systems of care for troubled youths following concerns that children were receiving improper treatment and were being placed in unnecesarily expensive programs.

But a new report suggests that lax oversight is hampering the new system as well and that some of the same problems persist: misclassification of children into high-cost, taxpayer-financed treatment programs.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the legislature's investigative arm, issued the study Wednesday, raising serious questions about how Virginia is taking care of its mushrooming population of emotionally and behaviorally challenged children.

Among the report's findings:

About half the children placed in treatment programs (foster homes, psychiatric hospitals, counseling services, for example) from 1994 to 1996 were placed at the direction of a single person or agency - not the multi-agency review urged under state law. In a number of localities, children were misclassified for treatment.

Almost half of the 12,202 at-risk children served in fiscal year 1995 either posed no risk to themselves and others or had no recent history of serious misbehavior. While most of these cases reflect a local agency's attempt at early intervention, others might indicate a misuse of the 1992 state law that revamped services for these children.

Little evidence indicates that local community service officials work to negotiate lower rates from providers after a decision to fund a particular treatment plan has been made. The state pays the larger share of expenses for these programs.

There are ``critical gaps'' in the state oversight of this program due to a decline in top leadership interest and guidance, staff shortages, poor communication and the lack of statutory authority.

The study suggests several ways to correct the process: the creation of uniform assessment procedures; the requirement of multi-agency review before placement; the mandate that all local agencies submit internal audit results to the state.

Despite its criticism of the current process, the JLARC report said ``the program has considerable promise.'' More than 70 percent of parents and guardians surveyed for the study said the services they received through the program helped stabilize the children's behavior in the community, at home and at school.

The report also said that the growing number of children eligible for such programs makes substantial cost savings unrealistic in the long run.

The number of troubled children served rose 32 percent - from 10,214 statewide in 1994 to 13,453 in 1996. Over that same period, the amount of state and local money spent on providing such services jumped from 104.6 million to 144.5 million, or 38 percent.

Though concerned about the findings, Del. Glenn R. Croshaw, D-Virginia Beach, said he thought ``localities have done the best job they can. They've been boot-strapped for funding, and boot-strapped by the old ways of doing things.''

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu