County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative

Transcription

1 County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative DATE: TIME: PLACE: January 21, 2015, Case Systems and Processes Work Group Meeting 3:00 PM Lower Level Conference Room 70 W. Hedding Street San Jose, CA AGENDA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative no less than 24 hours prior to the meeting at (408) , or TDD (408) Please note: To contact the commission and/or to inspect any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to all or a majority of the Board of Supervisors (or any other commission, or board or committee) less than 72 hours prior to that meeting, visit our website at or contact the Clerk at (408) or 70 W. Hedding Street, 10th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA 95110, during normal business hours. COMMUTE ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Supervisors encourages the use of commute alternatives including public transit, bicycles, carpooling, and hybrid vehicles. For public transit trip planning information, contact the VTA Customer Service Department at Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Schedule information is also available on the web at Bicycle parking racks are available in the James McEntee, Sr., Plaza in front of the County Government Center building. If this Board or Commission does not meet in the County Government Center please contact VTA for related routes. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call. 2. Public Comment. Opening Public Issues This item is reserved for persons desiring to address the Workgroup on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to the following: three minutes if the Chairperson or designee determines that five or fewer persons wish to address the Workgroup; two minutes if the Chairperson or designee determines that between six and fourteen persons wish to address the Workgroup; and one minute if the Chairperson or designee determines that fifteen or more persons wish to address the Workgroup. Regular Agenda - Items for Discussion 3. Approve 2014 Case Systems and Processes Workgroup accomplishments, 2015 Work Plan, and Direct File Workgroup report on 2013 data. (W. Haywood Burns Institute) (ID# 74733) 4. Approve minutes of the November 19, 2014 meeting. (ID# 74822) Page 1 of 2

2 Agenda Packet Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative, County of Santa Clara 5. Approve Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative's Case Systems and Processes Workgroup meeting dates for Calendar Year (ID# 74722) Adjourn January 21, Adjourn to the next Case Systems and Processes Workgroup meeting on February 18, 2015 at 3:00 p.m., in the Lower Level Conference Room, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California. Page 2 of 2

3 3 County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group DATE: January 21, 2015 TO: FROM: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Patrick Tondreau, Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court SUBJECT: Discuss 2014 Accomplishments & 2015 Workplan RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve 2014 Case Systems and Processes Workgroup accomplishments, 2015 Work Plan, and Direct File Workgroup report on 2013 data. (W. Haywood Burns Institute) The W. Haywood Burns Institute will provide a presentation regarding the 2014 CSP workgroup accomplishments, the 2015 work plan and a report back regarding 2013 data from the direct file workgroup. ATTACHMENTS: CSP Committee _final (PDF) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Packet Page Pg. 1 of 31 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

4 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CSP MEETING JANUARY 21, 2015 Packet Pg. 4

5 I. Welcome and Introductions II. III. Meeting Agenda Process for Identifying 2015 Target Populations 2014 Sub-committee Accomplishments a. Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) Sub-Committee b. Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) Sub-Committee c Sub-Committee d. Direct File Sub-Committee IV Work Plan Update V. Sub-Committee Reports Packet Pg. 5

6 Ongoing process BI Strategy for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities 1. Identify Disparities Identify whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist 2. Identify, Analyze and Strategize around a Target Population Identify target population to focus the work. Dig deeper into target population to learn more about policy, practice, and/or procedure and other factors contributing to disparities. Strategize around how policy, practice, and/or procedure change might result in reductions in disparities. Pilot or adopt policy change 3. Measure Progress Monitor Effectiveness of Policy Change Document changes in disparities Packet Pg. 6

7 Process for Identifying Target populations Outstanding Potential Targets identified in 2014: Warrants EMP/CRP Violations (Pre-Adjudication and Post- Adjudication) What is the process for Identifying Target Populations? Packet Pg. 7

8 5 Quarterly Data Template Packet Pg. 8

9 RAI Sub-Committee Goal: Ensure that the RAI is being administered in a consistent, accurate and equitable manner Reduce the number of youth overridden into secure detention Reduce Policy Holds Accomplishments: RAI Committee: Review and analyze Santa Clara County Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) Conducted further CRP/EMP data analysis Convened the CRP/EMP sub-committee and CRP/EMP Policy Revision Develop reports for monitoring the RAI BI Recommendations 2014 Accomplishments 1. Establish clear guidelines for Pre & Post CRP/EMP programs (i.e. purpose, eligibility, expectations and graduated responses) 2. Regularly review CRP/EMP data to ensure progress toward stated goals. Packet Pg. 9

10 95122 Work Group Goals: Reduce the use of out-of-school suspensions Reduce the use of school based law enforcement citations Reduce the use of violations of probation Accomplishments: 31% reduction in the number of youth arrested in between Committee: Development of Memorandum of Understanding regarding the No Citation policy. BI Recommendations 2014 Accomplishments 1. The work group should review relevant data on a regular basis to ensure progress toward stated goals. 2. Prior to the expansion of the effort, the work group should develop clear policies or protocols for all parties involved in the project (e.g. schools, law enforcement, probation, service providers). 3. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding for engagement with services providers. Packet Pg. 10

11 Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) Sub-Committee Goal: Ensure equitable access to the DEJ program for eligible youth Increase the number of youth who successfully complete the DEJ program Ensure objectivity in report/recommendations Accomplishments: Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) 2014 Accomplishments Probation Suitability Report Revised Judges training regarding DEJ data analysis Implemented policy ensuring all relevant parties are present during Parte Hearing to address potential program failures Development of DEJ Data Report BI Recommendations 1.The sub-committee should regularly review DEJ Data Report to ensure progress toward program goals. 2. The sub-committee should conduct inventory/evaluation of current services to ensure they are meeting youth needs. Packet Pg. 11

12 Direct File and 707(b) Committee: Direct File Sub-committee Goal: Ensure objectivity and equity in decision-making for youth directly filed in adult court. Decrease direct files. Sub-committee Accomplishments: Development of Direct File Protocol Form Case File Review Improved Capacity to collect data on youth directly filed Accomplishments BI Recommendations 1. Monitor direct files and direct file forms 2. Strategize options in juvenile court 3. Continue to improve on data collection Packet Pg. 12

13 CSP Committee 2015 Work Plan Improvement Area Goals Objectives Timelines Responsible Person(s) Governance Structure 1. Ensure diverse representation within CSP Committee 2. Solidify decisionmaking process used to identify new target populations and/or discharge existing work groups Collaboration 1. Ensure meaningful engagement of community with regard to county system reform efforts Data Capacity/Data Utilization 1. Ensure the regular use of accurate and reliable data to highlight disparities and track progress Research process for appointing new CSP membership Assess current CSP membership Outreach new CSP members Establish key indicators of disparities to regularly monitor Convene Data Committeeincluding IS to establish data and key indicators Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Mariel Caballero (MC) CSP Leadership Team MC, MB, JT, CA MC/KA MC/KA Packet Pg. 13

14 CSP Committee Membership Committee Position Member Named Alternate Chief Probation Officer, Probation Department Laura Garnette Robert DeJesus Director, Department of Drug and Alcohol Services Bruce Copley Sue Nelson District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney Jeffrey Rosen - vacant - Parent Advocate - vacant - - vacant - Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court Patrick Tondreau Katherine Lucero Sheriff, Office of the Sheriff Laurie Smith John Hirokawa County Employees Management Association ("CEMA") Representative Local 1587, AFSCME, Probation Peace Officers Union Bargaining Unit Representative Dolores Morales Mark Murray Zeb Feldman Russell Correia Victim Advocate Marc Buller Lisa Gomez Youth or Youth Representative Laura Champion - vacant - Youth Service Provider Representative as nominated by the Silicon Valley Council of Non-Profits André Chapman - vacant - Chairperson, Juvenile Justice Commission Penny Blake Raul Colunga Packet Pg. 14

15 707(b) and Direct File Analysis (2013) Packet Pg. 15

16 13 Direct File 2013 Data Review: General: For what offenses were youth directly filed? How many eligible cases were directly filed? Were eligible youth of color directly filed more often than eligible White youth? How does 2012 compare with 2013? How old were the youth who were directly filed? Outcomes: How many cases filed in 2013 have an outcome? What was the sentence? Did the most serious offense sustained in court differ from the most serious offense filed? What is the case processing time for youth directly filed? How long do youth stay in juvenile court while case is pending? Conversation regarding Juvenile Court: For which cases was there dialogue about maintaining juvenile jurisdiction if other options were available? Protocol Review: Discuss use of document to memorialize direct file decisions. Packet Pg. 16

17 14 Methodology for reviewing Direct Files Analysis of Santa Clara District Attorney s Office data- collected and recorded in 3 databases: (1) 707(b) petitions filed in Juvenile Court in 2013 (2) Cases directly filed in adult court in 2013 (3) Direct File Cases with disposition in 2013 regardless of when the case was filed Case File Review of 47 Cases Directly filed in 2013 (data collection form available). Packet Pg. 17

18 15 Most Serious Charge: 707(b) Offenses 2013 Eligible for Direct File but Remains in Juvenile Direct Files Total Eligible for Direct File % Directly Filed TOTAL % Robbery % Felony Assault % Forcible Sex Crime % Sex Crime Involving Child % Attempt Murder % Murder % Robbery/Carjack % Kidnap % Gang % Witness Intimidation % Shooting into Inhabited Dwelling % Arson of Inhabited Dwelling % Only includes those youth who were 14+ at the time of the alleged incident. See Last slide for specific penal code sections. Packet Pg. 18

19 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 707(b) Petitions (2013) 0% 80% 79% 75% 80% 77% 20% 21% 25% 20% 23% White Black Latino Asian Total Direct File Juvenile White Black Latino Asian /PI Youth Eligible for Direct File but Remain in Juvenile Total Directly Filed Total Youth Eligible for Direct File Percent of Eligible Youth who are Directly Filed 20% 21% 25% 20% 23% Packet Pg. 19

20 Direct File Comparison White Black Latino API No Data White Black Latino Asian/ PI Other No Data 2012 Direct File Direct File Total Percent Change % 600% 40% 100% -100% -100% 38% Packet Pg. 20

21 Comparing 2012 and : 195 Eligible 2013: 200 Eligible 17% Directly Filed 23% Directly Filed (34 youth) (47 youth) In 2012, 17 % of eligible cases were directly filed Juvenile Directly Filed White Black Latino Asian/ PI In 2013, 23% of eligible cases were directly filed. While the number of offenses eligible for direct file increased by 3% (from 195 to 200) the number of cases directly filed increased by 38% (from 34 to 47) Other No Data 2012 % of Eligible Directly Filed 11% 6% 17% 8% * * 17% Total Packet Pg % of Eligible Directly Filed 20% 21% 25% 20% * * 23%

22 Most Serious Offenses for which Youth were Directly Filed in Adult Court (2013) 11 Attempted Murder 9 8 Murder Robbery Assault Carjacking/ Robbery 7 Murder and Attempted Murder accounted for 20 (43%) of cases directly filed. In only 1 of 9 of the murder charges (11%), youth is alleged as the shooter. For 8 of 11 of the attempted murders (80%), youth is alleged to have discharged firearm/stabbed victim. 5 3 Kidnap while Carjacking 2 2 Sex Crimes All Other Packet Pg. 22

23 Co- Defendants Murder 19 No Attempted Murder Assault Robbery/ Carjacking Robbery 28 Yes Kidnap/ Carjacking 28 of 47 (60%) of directly filed cases had a co-defendant. 17 of the 28 cases with co-defendants (61%) had adult codefendants. Sex Offense Yes No Other Total Packet Pg. 23

24 21 Comparison of Offenses Categories White Black Latino API Total Direct File Juvenile Assault Total % Direct Filed 0% 43% 7% 17% 12% White Black Latino API Total Direct File Juvenile Robbery Total % Direct Filed 43% 6% 7% 0% 10% Packet Pg. 24

25 Age range of youth directly filed (at incident) White Black Latino Asian Total N=3 N=7 N=35 N=2 N=47 Youngest Age at Incident Average Age at Incident Oldest Age at Incident Packet Pg. 25

26 Filed vs. Sustained Charges 13 Charge Remained Same 10 Charge Reduced Of the 23 cases with a sustained petition, 10 cases (43%) had the charge reduced Of Charges Reduced: 2 Kidnapping (PC 209.5) were reduced to carjacking (PC 215) 1 Assault (PC 245(b)) was reduced to an accessory (PC 32) 1 Assault (PC 245(c) was reduced to a PC 69 4 Attempted Murders (PC ) reduced to: PC 245(a) (1) PC 245(a) (2) [twice] PC 245(a) (4) Packet Pg. 26

27 24 Directly Filed in 2013: Sentence > 1 Year County Jail 6 6 > 1 Year County Jail 1 Year County Jail 1-5 Years CDCR 5-10 Years CDCR 10+ CDCR 1 Year County Jail + Probation 1-5 Years CDCR 5-10 Years CDCR 10+ Years CDCR Assault Attempted Murder Carjacking Kidnapping with Carjacking Other Robbery Sex Offense Total TOTAL Packet Pg. 27

28 Direct File Cases with Disposition in 2013 (regardless of year filed): 25 Minimum 1 Day* Average Case Processing Time Median 297 Days (x2) 297 (x4) 287 Average 379 Days (x3) Maximum 1056 Days 1056 (x2) Packet Pg. 28

29 Length of Stay in Juvenile Hall (as of 12/31/14) 26 Shortest: 20 Day (x2) Note: Juvenile Hall length of stay data include 37 of the 47 cases directly filed in cases were filed after youth turned 18, so there is LOS in juvenile hall. 10 cases include youth who still remain in juvenile hall as of 12/31/14 (bolded in dark red above) (x2) Longest: 575 Days 575 Packet Pg. 29

30 27 Question Posed in Case File Review: If there were appropriate alternatives available, would you re-consider a similar case for juvenile? Offenses Race/Ethnicity Age Co-Defendants Sentence DA would consider juvenile 31 DA would not consider juvenile Packet Pg. 30

31 Cases Considered for Juvenile: Offenses and Race/Ethnicity 4 4 Robbery Carjacking Robbery Carjacking Attempted Murder Attempted Murder 2 2 Assault Assault Kidnap/ Carjacking Kidnapping with Carjacking Witness Intimidation Robbery Murder Murder Witness Intimidation Witness Intimidation White Black Latino Total Total Packet Pg. 31

32 29 16 Cases Considered for Juvenile: Age at Offense White Black Latino N=2 N=2 N=12 Youngest Age at Incident Average Age at Incident Oldest Age at Incident Packet Pg. 32

33 30 16 Cases Considered for Juvenile: Co-Defendants 4 No 12 Yes 12 of the 16 (75%) cases included a co-defendant. Of the 12 cases with a codefendant, 5 (42%) included an adult co-defendant. Packet Pg. 33

34 Santa Clara Direct File Protocol 31 Protocol for Direct File Youth Name: PFN Number: Date of Birth: Race/Ethnicity: Gender: Direct File Decision: Mandatory Discretionary Date of Incident: Arresting Officer: Offense(s) Alleged by LEA: Gang Allegations: Y / N Reason for Direct File: (provide facts and/or rationale to support decision) Review Five Fitness Factors: (1) Criminal Sophistication : Yes No The degree of criminal sophistication supports a decision to directly file youth in adult court. (2) Youth Rehabilitation: Yes No Evidence suggests that youth cannot be rehabilitated prior to expiration of juvenile jurisdiction. (3) Delinquency History: Yes No Youth s delinquency history support a decision to directly file youth in adult court. (4) Previous Attempts by Court to Rehabilitate: Yes No Previous attempts by court to rehabilitate support a decision to directly file youth in adult court. (5) Circumstances and gravity of offense: Yes No The circumstances and gravity of the offense support a decision to directly file youth in adult court. Consultation with Probation: Probation Officer Consulted: Comments: Agreement on Direct File from Four District Attorneys: Juvenile Supervising Deputy District Attorney Badge Number: Adult Supervising Deputy District Attorney Badge Number: Juvenile Assistant District Attorney Badge Number: Adult Assistant District Attorney Badge Number: Direct File Decision: Remain in Juvenile Direct File Fitness Hearing Packet Pg. 34

35 Most Serious Charge: 707(b) Offenses (b) in Juvenile 707(b) Directly Filed Total 707(b) % Directly Filed TOTAL % PC (c) % PC245(a)(1) % PC245(a)(4) % PC % PC288(b)(1) % PC 664(a) % PC261(a)(2) % PC % PC245(c) % PC % PC136.1(c)(1) % PC186.22(a) % PC (b) % PC245(b) % PC288a(c)(2) % PC289(a)(1)(A) % PC % PC (a) % PC (a)(1)(A) % PC 212.5(c) % PC % PC % PC289(a)(1)(C) % PC451(b) % PC 32 and (a) % Packet Pg. 35

36 DEJ Sub-Committee Packet Pg. 36

37 34 DEJ Quarterly Reports DEJ Recommendations and Findings Probation DEJ Reports Recommending Suitable Probation DEJ Reports Recommending Unsuitable Total Probation DEJ Reports Probation Suitability Recommendation Rate Judge Finds Youth Suitable Judge Finds Youth Unsuitable Total DEJ Suitability Hearings Judicial Suitability Finding Rate DEJ Success Rate Youth Successfully Completing DEJ Youth Terminated/Failed DEJ Total Youth Exiting DEJ in Quarter (successful completion and terminated) DEJ Success Rate TOTAL White Black Latino Asian* PI* Total White Black Latino Asian* PI* Native American Other Male Female Native American Other Male Female Asian youth are further broken down: (1) Asian Other; (2) Chinese; (3) Cambodian; (4) Filipino; (5) Japanese; (6) Korean; (7) Laotian; (8) Vietnamese; Pacific Islander youth are further broken down by: (1) Guamanian; (2) Pacific Islander; (3) Hawaiian; Packet Pg. 37

38 35 DEJ Success Rates 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% White Black Latino Asian DEJ Success Rates Q Q Q Q Q Q Q White Black Latino Asian Consistently, Black and Latino youth have lower success rates than White and Asian youth. Next Steps for Committee: Investigate reasons for failures for Black and Latino youth. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q % 70% 83% 86% 80% 83% 92% 12 of of of of 14 8 of of 12 4 of 5 0% 50% 60% 25% 33% 33% 0% 0 of 4 5 of 10 3 of 5 1 of 4 1 of 3 2 of 6 0 of 2 63% 57% 48% 59% 69% 78% 63% 36 of of of of of of of 32 83% 50% 91% 100% 100% 100% 83% 5 of 6 2 of 4 10 of 10 2 of 2 6 of 6 6 of 6 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 38 ** Data are based on total number of youth completing DEJ (either successfully or failed) during quarter.

39 36 Contact Information W. Haywood Burns Institute 180 Howard Street, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA (415) Laura Ridolfi, Law and Policy Analyst, Ext. 108 Gina Peralta, Site Manager, Ext. 104 Packet Pg. 39

40 4 County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group DATE: January 21, 2015 TO: FROM: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Patrick Tondreau, Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court SUBJECT: Minutes of November 19, 2014 meeting RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve minutes of the November 19, 2014 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: CSP WG Minutes (2) (PDF) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Packet Page Pg. 1 of 401 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

41 4.a County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group (CSP WG) Minutes of November 19, Call to Order/Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Co-Chair Marc Buller at approximately 3:00 p.m. Roll Call (by Co-Chair Tondreau): Adam Perez, Public Defender s Office Aila Malik, Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) Program Ali Knight, FLY Alisha B. Schoen, Office of the District Attorney Ben Madia, Eastfield Ming Quong Families First Chris Arriola, Office of the District Attorney David Lera, Sheriff s Office Diane Teves, Probation JJ Kapp, Public Defender s Office Jose Franco, Office of the Public Defender Judge Pat Tondreau, Co-Chair, CSP WG Karen Avila, Probation Laura Ridolfi, W. Haywood Burns Institute Marc Buller, Office of the District Attorney Mariel Caballero, Juvenile Probation Department Michelle Pelayo-Osorio, Board of Supervisors, District 3 Mike Simms, Probation Ray Blockie, Juvenile Justice Commission Sue Nelson, Department of Alcohol and Drug Services Co-Chair Buller reported that the next Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) meeting is scheduled tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. in the Social Services Agency Department. There will be an item for discussion regarding primary and alternate members for all departments. He noted that if an individual wishes to become an alternate member, he/she must submit a request to the JJSC to be added as an alternate member on the roster. 2. Public Comment There were no public comments. 3. Accept update from the subcommittee formed to develop a plan to address disproportionate minority contact in the zip code Attachment: CSP WG Minutes (2) (74822 : Minutes of November 19, 2014 meeting) Subcommittee: Co-Chair Buller reported that a draft report was distributed regarding an overview of the historical perspective of what the Subcommittee has accomplished during the Subcommittee meeting last month. Packet Pg. 41

42 County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group Minutes of November 19, 2014 Page 2 4.a He stated that it is still in draft form although it will be presented to the JJSC tomorrow. He further reported that the JJSC discussed how to resolve the issue regarding a lack of momentum of service providers in the area. There was an abundance of service providers last year but services for this next school year are not as abundant and available to Overfelt staff. The JJSC has requested providers and funders to augment their contract so they could come back this school year to help out. Eastfield Ming Quong (EMQ) and a few other service providers are looking at making their services available at Overfelt High School. Additionally, the JJSC will look at how to institutionalize funding for the next school year and will look at long-term solutions for those allocations. Co-Chair Buller stated that the no citations policy is going well. Johnny Gogo is on campus every Tuesday. Mike Simms reported that Probation is reviewing resource allocations to increase its presence there as well. The next meeting of the Subcommittee is scheduled at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, January 12, 2015 at Overfelt High School. 4. Accept update from subcommittee formed to examine three key decision points in the Juvenile Justice System: Intake at Juvenile Hall; Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b) offenses for juveniles age 14 and up, Direct Files to the adult court, and fitness hearings; and, deferred entry of judgment. 707(b) Offenses, Direct Files and Fitness Content Committee: Chris Arriola stated that he, Mariel Caballero, Jose Franco, Laura Ridolfi and a few staff members from the District Attorney s (D.A.) Office spent two half-days from noon to 4:00 p.m. over the past month to review every direct file case filed in He noted that 11 or 12 cases were direct filed in 2012 and 2013 and that the computer system double-counted some of them as there were 47 duplicate cases for There was general agreement that 70% of the cases were direct filed but the Committee will look at considering alternatives in juvenile for these minors for more discretionary. Additionally, the direct file form was modified to a one-page document with check marks and a system has been developed to identify fitness cases. A report will be presented at the next meeting in January Attachment: CSP WG Minutes (2) (74822 : Minutes of November 19, 2014 meeting) Ms. Caballero asked if the analysis could also reflect the age of the minor at the time of offense and the minor s age when the case was filed as this was a big concern of what to do if the minor is 19 and the crime was committed when he or she was 16 or 17. Packet Pg. 42

43 County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group Minutes of November 19, 2014 Page 3 4.a Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) Content Committee: Karen Avila reported that the DEJ Committee reviewed the suitability reports that were submitted for the month of October at its last meeting. There were 23 DEJ suitability reports and all reports addressed all 5 criteria compared to only 26% previously. The Committee is also tracking the rate of how many were found suitable and whether the court went along with the recommendation(s) made by Probation. As the Committee moves forward, it will look at the data on a quarterly basis. The first quarterly report should be ready in January Laura Ridolfi reported that the Committee will look at monitoring how successful kids are in DEJ and how often the D.A. s Office is recommending DEJ. Additionally, one factor that is being monitored but not reflected on the report is the age of 14 and 15-year-olds and 16 and 17-year-olds. The second piece is looking at the DEJ recommendation. The Committee will review all DEJ reports submitted to the court to determine the number of reports that Probation recommended that were unsuitable for DEJ, the rate that Probation is recommending DEJ and the differences between race, ethnicity, gender and age. Co-Chair Buller raised an inquiry if the number of offenses will decrease with Proposition 47 in effect. Ms. Avila expressed the opinion that the DEJ numbers will decrease but this is something that the Committee will consider in moving forward because they are not eligible on misdemeanors. She stated that Probation will continue to track the DEJ numbers and review the offenses that were given relief from Proposition 47 to determine how it affects the future criminality of minors. Risk Assessment Instrument (R.A.I.) Content Committee: Ms. Caballero reported that the R.A.I. Committee held its last meeting in October and presented its data for the first six months of January through June The Committee will go back and do a deeper dive of 28 cases involving gang offenses and substance abuse to determine if any pattern emerges. Additionally, the Committee found some discrepancies between what the data system says the court released at detention versus what the courts are releasing at detention. The Committee will see if these are technical issues and determine the correct number. A report will go out regarding the findings on the deeper dive and the technical issues related to release at detention. The R.A.I. Committee is also working on finalizing a quarterly report. Attachment: CSP WG Minutes (2) (74822 : Minutes of November 19, 2014 meeting) The next meeting of the R.A.I. Committee is scheduled on January 8, 2015 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 5. Adjourn to the next meeting of the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:00 Packet Pg. 43

44 County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Case Systems and Processes Work Group Minutes of November 19, 2014 Page 4 4.a p.m., in the Lower Level Conference Room, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose. Ms. Caballero distributed a handout regarding the JJSC funding plan that will be discussed in detail at the JJSC meeting tomorrow. Adam Perez asked everyone to be prepared to present the JJSC with their ideas of the types of programs that can help the goals and initiatives of the work groups. Co-Chair Buller stated that this will be his last meeting in attendance as a named alternative member of the D.A. s Office. Effective January or February 2014, he will become a voting member of the JJSC and he and Judge Tondreau will continue to co-chair this Committee. Chris Arriola announced that Co-Chair Buller s retirement party is scheduled on Thursday, December 11 th, and that anyone interested in attending the event may RSVP to him or James Sparrow via electronic mail. Co-Chair Buller reported that the December 17 th meeting will be cancelled and that the next regular meeting of this Committee is scheduled on January 21, Ms. Caballero stated that the official calendar for 2015 JJSC meetings and two work groups have not come out yet because they are dependent on the Board of Supervisors meeting schedule. She will make sure everyone gets a copy of the calendar when it becomes available. On order of the Co-Chairperson, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Attachment: CSP WG Minutes (2) (74822 : Minutes of November 19, 2014 meeting) Packet Pg. 44

45 5 County of Santa Clara Clerk of the Board DATE: January 21, 2015 TO: FROM: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative Lynn Regadanz, Clerk of the Board SUBJECT: CSP meeting dates RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative's Case Systems and Processes Workgroup meeting dates for Calendar Year FISCAL IMPLICATIONS CONTRACT HISTORY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION CHILD IMPACT The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on children and youth. SENIOR IMPACT The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on seniors. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications. BACKGROUND CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Packet Page Pg. 1 of 452 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

46 ATTACHMENTS: JJSC CSP meeting dates (DOCX) 5 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian Page 2 of 2 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: January 21, 2015 Packet Pg. 46

47 5.a COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS COLLABORATIVE CASE SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES WORKGROUP 2015 MEETING CALENDAR Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of every month at 3:00 p.m. in the Lower Level Conference Room, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose. January 21, 2015 February 18, 2015 March 18, 2015 April 15, 2015 May 20, 2015 June 17, 2015 July 15, 2015 August 19, 2015 September 16, 2015 October 21, 2015 November 18, 2015 December 16, 2015 Attachment: JJSC CSP meeting dates (74722 : CSP meeting dates) Packet Pg. 47