Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10122004 - SD4 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCONTRA' From: Family and Human Services Committee COSTA D COUNTY Date: October 12, 2004 Subject: JSPAC — Juvenile Services in East County SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION (S)&BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION I. Recommendation: CONSIDER acknowledging receipt of report from the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee entitled Contra Costa East County Juvenile Court Services: improving Efficiency and Public Access. lI. Financial Impact: None at this time. If the recommendations in the report were approved as written, there would be significant implementation costs to both the Superior Court and the County. These costs cannot be determined without an in depth cost analysis. III. Discussion / Background: The attached study was conducted as part of a program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. The study reviewed services to clients of the juvenile court system in the eastern region of the County. The report offers short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations for improving efficiency and court services to be consideration. The recommendations include some items that the County has the ability to implement, some that the Court would need to consider implementing, and some that would require a joint effort. The recommendations also cover a broad range of issues, from providing a computer for social workers at the Court, to additional staff, to a new facility. Implementing any of the recommendations listed in this report would require some investment of resources on the part of either the Court or the County or both. Given the current budgetary climate, the decisions on how to address the concerns outlined in this report will be difficult. In addition to the attached report are two letters providing additional information. One letter is from Judge Lois Haight, Supervising Juvenile Judge. The second letter is from Danna Fabella, Director of Children and Family Services in the Employment and Human Services Department. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X Yes No SIGNAT RE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Ulrlk DeSaulnier John Gj is ACTION OF BOARD ON October 12 2004 APPROVED S RECOMMENDED X OTHER X ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of report and REFERRED the East Bay Community Foundation's ' Disproportionate Sentencing Initiative to the Family and Human Services Committee. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS ABSEN 4 '> f-'— AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact Person: DorothySansoe 5-1009 ATTESTED CC: EHSD-Danna Fabella JORN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Dorothy Sansoe SUPERVISORS AND COUNTYADMINISTRATOR By Y County of Contra Cost {OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MEM MNDUM DATE: September 27, 2404 TO: Family and Human Services Committee Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier,District 4, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, District 1,Member FRO Dorothy Sanso , staff SUBJECT: REFERRAL #3—JSPAC, POLICY ANALYSIS ON EAST COUNTY JUVENILE COURT SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCEPT the report submitted by the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee entitled, Contra Costa East Coup Juvenile Court Services: Improving Efficiency and Public Access, by Nina L. Erlich-Williams. BACKGROUND: The attached study was conducted as part of a program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. The study reviewed services to clients of the juvenile court system in the eastern region of the County. The report offers short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations for improving efficiency and court services to be consideration. The recommendations include some items that the County has the ability to implement, some that the Court would need to consider implementing, and some that would require a joint effort. The recommendations also cover a broad range of issues,from providing a computer for social workers at the Court, to additional staff,to a new facility. Implementing any of the recommendations listed in this report would require some investment of resources on the part of the Court and County. Given the current budgetary climate, the decisions on how to address the concerns outlined in this report will be difficult. cc: Florence McCauley, Chair, JSPAC Attachments S ADVANCED POLICY ANALYSIS Contra Costa East County Juvenile Court Services. Improving Efficiency and Public Access A Study Conducted for the Juvenile Services Planning and Advisory Committee, Contra Costa County, California by Nina L. Erlich-Williams SPRING 2404 The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, by the University of California or by any other agency. 4 East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency I. Acknowledgements I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work on such an interesting and challenging topic for my Advanced Policy Analysis. Many thanks to Contra Costa County's Juvenile Services Planning and Advisory (JSPAC) for inviting me to investigate the question of whether juvenile courts might be made more accessible to East County residents and more efficient for the county. Specifically, I extend my appreciation to Florence McAuley and Mark Morris for ongoing feedback and advice throughout my work on this project. Tuesday nights at Gene Bardach's house were an invaluable part of my APA experience. Thanks to Professor Bardach for opening his home to us, to Michelle Probert for being an appropriately critical and supportive "buddy," and to the rest of the seminar participants for close attention and good advice when asked. Nina Goldman was a great help at a critical point in my research process. To Nina and everyone else who made time to answer my questions and help me understand the complex relationships between each agency, the county and the courts I am extremely grateful. Last, I would like to thank my family and friends for seeing me through this project and for offering me support every step of the way in my time at GSPP. A special thanks to Sev for seeing me through each day. Nina Erlich-Williams May 2004 ii Table of Contents I. Acknowledgements II. Executive Summary 5 111. Introduction: Inefficiencies and Inequities Plague 7 Contra Costa County's juvenile Court System a, An Inefficient System b. Traffic Congestion &Poor Transportation Disproportionately Burden East County Families c. County Workers Lose Valuable Work Time Commuting to Martinez Courts d. The State and the County are Aware of the Need e. Scope of Report IV. Methodology g V. The Courts: How the System Works a a. Court Facilities in Contra Costa County in 2004: State or County Responsibility? b. Court Administration c. What Happens in a juvenile Court? d. Dependency Court e. Delinquency Court Vl. The Need: East County Cases are Growing 17 a. East County Region without Local juvenile Court Access b. Current Trends in East County Dependency Court Cases c. Current Trends in East County Delinquency Court Cases d. East County Court Services are Needed VII. Criteria for Evaluation and Potential Solutions 22 a. Criteria b. Alternatives Not Considered c. Potentially Feasible Alternatives d. County and Public Costs VIII. Recommendations 30 a. Short-term Recommendations b. Medium-term Recommendations c. Long-term Recommendations d. Looking to the Future ................................................. East County Juvenile Courts;Access and Efficiency IX. Appendices 34 a. Appendix A: List of Interviewees b. Appendix B:Technical Methodology X. References 40 - 4 - East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency IL Executive Summary Contra Costa County is not providing services efficiently to clients of its juvenile court system who live in the eastern region of the county. East County social workers and probation officers face long commutes in traveling between their offices and Martinez on court days. East County court clients face similar difficulties in getting to court. With considerable population growth projected in East County in the coming decades, the time costs and challenges associated with holding juvenile court for East County residents in Martinez are likely to increase.' The unfair burden facing East County clients makes this issue worthy of investigation despite current budget shortfalls. Administration of court facilities is in the process of being transferred from the county to the State Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The AOC has already officially acknowledged the current shortcomings in service provision. Until the full transition of facilities from the county to the AOC is complete, making any adjustments to court services would require cooperation between the county and the state. As background to the current situation in Contra Costa County, this report provides information regarding the juvenile court system generally, as well as the particular needs and challenges facing the County's court system. General descriptions of the court case process for both dependency and delinquency courts are provided, as are a collection of data that summarize the existing need for expanded East County juvenile court services. The last two sections of the report consider potential policy alternatives for the county to consider as a means of addressing the inefficiencies and inequities of the current system. Changes in staffing costs for each of the most promising solutions are also summarized. Finally, the report offers five short-, medium-and long-term recommendations for the county to consider as viable policy options for improving efficiency and court service: Short-Term Recommendation #1: Provide workspace in an ongoing and permanent way within the downtown Martinez courthouse for East County social workers. Short-Term Recommendation#2. Take region of the county into account when scheduling court calendars for juvenile delinquency cases. ' Judicial Council of California."Court Facilities Master Plan: Superior Court of California,County of Contra Costa."San Francisco:Administrative Office of the Courts. 2003.1-7. - 5 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Medium Term Recommendation#1: Establish a part-time dependency court in East County. Medium-Term Recommendation#2: Establish a part-time delinquency court in East County. Long-Term Recommendation: When funding becomes available, the AOC should construct and operate a full-service juvenile court in East County, and the county should support the operation of relevant auxiliary offices, Implementing any of the recommendations listed here would require some investment of resources on the part of the court or of the county. Given the poor and worsening conditions facing East County employees and court clients, however,the situation will have to eventually be addressed. if the county and the courts allow the current structure of court services to remain unchanged, the principle of providing adequate public service to East County families will fall by the wayside. - 6 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency III. Introduction: Inefficiencies and Inequities Plague Contra Costa County's Juvenile Court System An Inefficient System Contra Costa County is not providing services efficiently to clients of its juvenile court system who live in the eastern region of the county. County social workers and probations officers who are based in East County face between one and two hours of commute time in traveling between their offices and Martinez on days when they must appear in court. Moreover, East County court clients face similar difficulties in getting to court in Martinez. With considerable population growth projected in East County in the coming decades,the time costs faced by these clients are likely to worsen.' Traffic Congestion &Poor Transportation Disproportionately Burden East County Families Highway 4 is the only major route that connects Martinez and East County, and it is highly congested during rush hour periods.3 Public transportation options to Martinez from most parts of East County range from poor to non-existent, making court access even more challenging for low-income court clients.4 Parents and children with juvenile court cases are required to be at court at 8:30am for the majority of hearings. For families who live in the furthest regions of East County, the early start time means that they may have to leave their homes as early as 6:00am in order to arrive in court on time. For instance, Bethel Island is approximately 40 miles from Martinez,but traffic conditions are so poor that driving to court may take more than two hours. Although Antioch is only 20 miles from the courthouse, the journey by car generally takes about an hour during rush hour periods. Moreover, public transportation options have not kept pace with the rapid growth in East County. If families are forced to take public transportation to court, travel time averages more than two hours each way from even relatively central parts of East County. Traveling to court rarely requires such early start times for families who live in West or Central County,where courts hear juvenile cases in Richmond and Martinez. 2 Ibid. 3 California Department of Transportation. "1998 Highway Congestion Monitoring Report." Oakland: Office of Highway Operations. 1998. 2. 4According to Jarrell Brown of Contra Costa Court Appointed Special Advocates(CASA),families with child abuse cases in the juvenile court system are more likely than not to live in poverty. Many of the individuals interviewed for this report verified anecdotally that families often deal with child abuse through private resources(such as counseling)when they have the means to do so. - 7 - a East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency County Workers Lose Valuable Work Time Commuting to Martinez Courts In addition to time spent traveling to the courts,social workers based in East County are unable to make efficient use of the work day on court days. Like court clients, social workers must arrive by 8:30am. With no office space available to them in or near the Martinez courts,these social workers can lose anywhere from two hours to an entire day of productive work time on such days. These inefficiencies can be extremely costly to the county in addition to having negative effects on employee morale. The State and the County are Aware o,f the Need The State Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has progressively gained responsibility for all capital and operation costs for California Superior Courts since 1198. The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 officially laid the groundwork for the transfer of county court facilities to the AOC. In October 2003, the AOC published the Court Facilities Master flan,which acknowledges the need for an East County court as soon as possible. Scope of Deport This report will address the challenges of juvenile court access for clients and the efficient use of juvenile court time for Contra Costa County staff. Descriptions of the juvenile court dependency and delinquency processes, advantages and disadvantages of the current system, and recommendations for improvements that could be implemented before the East County Court is built are discussed in detail. Although the need for improved and expanded adult court services have also been projected by the AOC, this report is limited to challenges faced by, and recommendations for improvement to, Contra Costa County's juvenile court system. A detailed evaluation of the public transportation system serving East County is also beyond the scope of this report. IV. Methodology Qualitative and quantitative data were used to identify the factors that contribute to the current challenges facing Contra Costa County in providing efficient and accessible juvenile court service. Four main sources of 'information serve as the basis for the analysis in this report. First, the majority of the data that informed the analysis in this report came from interviews with individuals who work, or supervise staff who work,with the courts. Many of these interviews were held with leaders of organizations within the County administrative structure that would be affected by changes to the juvenile court system. Important perspectives were also contributed by Contra Costa County Superior Court staff and individuals who work in organizations - 8 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency that provide auxiliary services to families in the court system. See Appendix A for a complete list of interviewees. Second,county employees from several departments provided data to help establish current levels of service provision in departments that provide court- related services. Data were also collected from the State Department of Justices and the University of California, Berkeley's Child Welfare Research Center Web sites.6 To establish costs to the county and the public for the different policy alternatives explored at the end of the document,approximate salary ranges were collected from the Contra Costa County Human Resources Department Web site. All public and county expenditures and savings are reported in current U.S. dollars, including time costs for both county employees and clients of the court system. See Appendix B for the detailed methodology used to determine these figures. Last, academic literature and published public documents informed the framing of the problem at hand and offered methodological guidance. V. The Courts: How the System Works The California State legislature granted oversight of the administration of the courts to the AOC in 1997, with the beginnings of a full administrative agency starting in January 1998. Although the majority of court operations had been run independently from county governments for years preceding this transfer, the creation of the AOC officially shifted all administrative functions (e.g.,human resources,finance and information technology) from counties to the state agency. The transfer of facilities has been taking place gradually since January 2003.7 Court Facilities in Contra Costa County in 2004.State or County Responsibility? As of May 2004, Contra Costa County's Superior Court facilities are still maintained by the county. Negotiations between the state and county around the transfer of ownership of these facilities are underway. As reflected in the Court Facilities Master Plan,all of Contra Costa County's court facilities are in need of either upgrade or replacement. Part of the challenge in determining a fair price for these facilities rests not only in the usable condition of the buildings but also in whether the county or the state should shoulder the burden of 5 California State Department of Justice. http://caag.state.ca.us/cisc/datatabs.htm. 6 Child Welfare Research Center,University of California,Berkeley. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/. 7 Judicial Council of California. "Profile:Judicial Council of California." 2004. 12. http://wtiyw,courtinfo,ca.gov/courtadmin/ic/documents/profleic.pdf. 7 May 2004. - 9 - East County Juvenile Courts,Access and Efjvciency bringing these facilities up to current seismic safety standards. Given the complexity of the issues related to establishing a fair transfer price for the court buildings,it is likely that these negotiations will be ongoing for the coming years. The AOC is technically responsible for funding any court-related facility expansion(whether building/buying or renting space) in Contra Costa County. In reality,however, the brunt of such expansion in the short term may fail to the county. Although the state reimburses the county for the majority of court- related costs, the county must still weigh the costs and benefits of its current system and determine whether to upgrade facilities at its own expense if it might reap other efficiency-related benefits from doing so. For 'instance, the county will likely bear the expense of upgrading the court facilities in the soon-to-be opened new juvenile hail in order to avoid ongoing supervision costs related to transporting in-custody minors to the inadequate Lion's Gate courts Until the full transition of facilities from the county to the state AOC is complete, making any adjustments to court services would require cooperation between the county and the state. If the county should opt to implement East County juvenile court services before the new full-service court is built it may be forced to underwrite some or all of the related facility costs. The state of flux around the issue of court facility ownership complicates the picture when considering whether and how to shift additional court facilities to East County. The county must defer to the AOC's statewide facility planning schedule for any court expansion unless it is willing to spend county resources on such projects. The Pittsburgh court,which is the only East County courthouse in operation,is taxed by the current level of use and is in need of upgrade or replacement. Currently, the only juvenile cases that are heard in this court are juvenile drug court cases on one afternoon per week. The courthouse is not well designed and currently staffers from problems of poor circulation and general overcrowding. Exits and entrances are poorly designed for the amount of people currently using the space. Further expansion of juvenile court services is therefore not a viable option in the Pittsburgh court under current operating constraints. Court Administration The county Superior Courts are managed by the Court Executive Officer and the Judicial Executive Committee (JEC). The Supervising Judge of the Juvenile Court sits on the JEC and leads policymaking efforts that relate to the juvenile courts for both dependency and delinquency cases. The Supervising Judge also has significant influence in determining the structure of the county's juvenile courts, including which types of cases are heard in which courts. The Court Executive &Interview with Steven Bautista,contra Costa County Chief Probation Officer. _ 10 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Officer and his staff implement programmatic policy as set by the JEC and manage the court's administrative functions at the direction of the Committee. What Happens in a juvenile Count? Two main types of cases are heard in juvenile courts: dependency (300) and delinquency (601 &602). While both types of cases deal with minors in need of support, there are significant differences between the way hearings for these cases are run and the types of county personnel required to attend each type of proceeding. The Dependency Court System The dependency court system works with families where children have exhibited signs of neglect or abuse. These families are often in need of services to help parents improve their ability to provide a safe and healthy home for their children, and/or to help locate a more appropriate permanent or long-term home for the children. Within the dependency system,each case goes through several stages of hearings. Legal requirements are strict to ensure that all cases are heard in a timely manner with the goal of providing at-risk children a safe and stable home as quickly as possible. Parents and children are legally entitled to be represented by their own lawyers in all phases of the dependency process. Since poverty is highly correlated with families whose children are in the dependency court system, many of these individuals are entitled to be represented by a public or alternate defender.9 Phase 1:The Detention Hearin When an East County-based child is pulled out of the home due to suspected abuse or neglect, a social worker has two business days to file a petition with the court. The worker must file the petition by 2:30pm of the second business day after the child has been detained,and a detention hearing is held the next morning at 8:30am in a Martinez courtroom. Both the court social worker and the parents must appear in court. The bench officer (judge or commissioner) determines whether the children in the case should be kept out of their parental home until the next phase of the case is heard at the detention hearing. g In Contra Costa County,the Public Defender's Office established an Alternate Defender's Office to minimize contracting costs for external lawyers. Although Alternate Defenders are technically Part of the Public Defender's Office,a"firewall" is in place to prevent information sharing between these agencies. The county is therefore able to serve twice as many constituents with county staff than would otherwise be possible,as legal ethics discourage having two parties to the same legal case represented by lawyers of the same agency. - 11 - East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency If the parent(s) qualify financially for representation by a public defender,they will be referred to the public defender's office early in the day. The case will then be taken up in the same courtroom at 1:30prn on the same day. If the parents are not in court at 8.30am on the day of this first hearing,the child is automatically detained in the foster care system until the jurisdictional hearing. Phase 2:The Turisdictional Hearin Jurisdictional hearings must be held within ten days of a detention hearing. The bench officer determines whether to support or dismiss the allegations of abuse or neglect at the jurisdictional hearing. If the case is dismissed, all charges are dropped at that time and the child is returned to the parental home. If the allegations are supported, Children and Family Services will identify an appropriate placement for the child and begin developing a plan for family reunification and/or permanent alternative placement of the child. Phase 3: The Dispositional Hearin If the child is kept out of the home after the jurisdictional hearing, a dispositional hearing is held within four months of the jurisdictional hearing to establish a plan for the child. The plan might include family counseling, substance abuse treatment, individual counseling or parenting classes. If the children are younger than three years old,the court will order two simultaneous plans for each child: one for the potential reunification of the family, and another to plan for the timely adoption of each child should reunification efforts fail. For older children, the plan generally includes stipulations for guardianship or long term foster care should the parent fail to reach the court's improvement goals. Phase 4: The Review Hearing Ongoing review hearings are held for all families with children in the system at a minimum of once every six.months. When young children(i.e., under three years of age) are in foster care,parents have up to six months to exhibit significant improvements in their ability to provide a safe home for their children. Parents of older children have twelve months to reach such goals. If the court agrees that the improvements have been sufficient, a reunification plan is put in place. If, however, they do not exhibit sufficient progress,parental rights are terminated at that time. Children under three years of age must be permanently placed (back with the family or with a different family) within twelve months. Older children must be permanently reunified with their parents or assigned to guardianship or long-term foster care within 18 months. - 12 - East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Who Comes to Dependency Court? Parents who are accused of abuse or neglect and,under certain circumstances, their children are present for at least some of the hearings outlined above. In addition to the families, a typical East County dependency court includes the following staff positions: • One bench officer (judge or commissioner); • One court clerk; « One court reporter; • One bailiff(in nearly all cases); + One interpreter as needed; • Nine court social workers,one court supervisor, and other social workers as needed; « One deputy county counsel; + One or more deputy public defenders; + One or more deputy alternate defenders; and • Privately hired counsel (by the client or the court) as needed. Children and Familv Services (CFS) in Contra Costa County organizes its social worker staffing around each phase of a case. In other words, different social workers are involved with different parts of the dependency court process. For instance, Emergency Response social workers deal with the family in the first 48 hours of a child's removal from the home. Court Workers manage cases from the detention through the dispositional hearing phases. Family Reunification social workers work with the families on an ongoing basis once ti-le case plan is established. Because several different social workers touch each case as it moves through the system., multiple East County social workers might be required to travel to Martinez to appear in court over the life of a single case. In addition to caseworkers, a Court Officer from CFS attends court every day of the week to ensure that the department is up to date at all times on the progress of current dependency cases. With the exception of detention hearings,which might be heard in one of several departments and on any day of the week, East County cases are generally heard on Mondays and Thursdays. The majority of routine East County dependency cases are scheduled on the same calendar(that is, heard in one court department) in Martinez on each of these days. Central County dependency cases are also heard in Martinez and are also generally scheduled on Central County-specific calendars. West County dependency cases are usually heard in the Richmond courthouse. All cases that pertain to permanent termination of parental rights or where the parent is contesting a bench officer's judgment are heard by a Superior Court Judge (as opposed to a commissioner) in a separate department from the more - 13 - East County fuvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency routine cases. Such cases are heard in Martinez from every part of the county, including cases that originate in Richmond. Can.East County court days,all nine CFS Court Workers arrive at the Martinez courthouse by 8:30am. One deputy county counsel is generally assigned to a day's worth of hearings; she represents CFS in dependency cases. Because each parent and alleged parent and each child is potentially assigned his or her own lawyer,any given dependency case might require five or more lawyers to represent the interested parties. Therefore, on a typical East County dependency court.morning, 20-25 county employees might be present in a courtroom either participating in the hearing of the case at hand or waiting for their cases to be called. The time required for a case to be heard is both unpredictable and highly variable. For instance, a jurisdictional hearing could take anywhere from 15 minutes to three hours. The significant level of uncertainty associated with dependency hearings sets the stage for inefficiency among court workers,who often spend much of the day waiting for their case to be heard. These challenges are discussed in more detail below. The Delinquency Court System Juveniles enter the delinquency court system when they commit"any act that is against the law when an adult does it"10 (602 violation) or when they violate curfew and./or exhibit an ongoing pattern of skipping school and disobeying their parents (601 violation). Because 602 cases constitute the majority of juvenile delinquency cases in Contra Costa County, this section will focus on 60.2 cases. When a minor is accused of breaking a law,she may or may not be required to attend juvenile court. Depending on the type of offense,the district attorney's office or the probation office may require the juvenile to appear in court. For less serious offenses, the child may be released with a warning or be required to fulfill requirements outlined by a probation officer without ever attending court. When a child is required to appear before a judge for a 602 offense, she may be diverted to a court-ordered program aimed at addressing the root cause of her delinquent behavior (e.g.,juvenile drug court) or released from the court system at any point along the way. Outlined below is the general order and types of hearings that take place in a typical 602 delinquency case. '('judicial Council of California "Juvenile Court Information for Parents(Delinquency)." 2002. 4. htts.//xnrww. ourtinfo. a. ovf/ orms/documents/iv060 pdf. 10 April 2004. - 14 - East County juvenile Courts:Access and Ffficiency Phase 1: The Detention Hearing At the detention hearing, the bench officer determines whether to keep a child in custody,and for how long,before the jurisdictional hearing. For most offenses, minors who are arrested are at least initially released before the detention hearing. Minors accused of committing a 602 offense have the right to be represented by an attorney at every phase of the case. Juveniles who cannot afford an attorney and would like to be represented by one are assigned to a public defender at their first appearance in court. The case is carried over to a later date if the juvenile opts for representation and is referred to the public defender's office. Phase 2: The jurisdictional Hearing The bench officer determines whether or not the minor committed the offense of which he is accused at the jurisdictional hearing. A deputy district attorney argues on behalf of the state and,in most cases, a deputy public defender represents the interests of the accused juvenile. If the child is found to have committed the offense,the case continues on to the next phase of the case. In some cases, a child may be diverted to an alternative program, such as drug; court, if he is willing to admit to the charges at this point in the case. If the charges are not found to be true, the youth is released from the system. Phase 3: The Dispositional Hearing The judge sets the terms of punishment for charges against a young person that have been found to be true at the dispositional hearing. These terms could include community service, a letter of apology and/or financial restitution to the victim of the crime, and time in juvenile hall or the Orin Allen Youth Facility ("the ranch"). Who Comes to Delinquency Court? The accused minor and,whenever possible, a parent or guardian attend court for each of the phases outlined above. Victims of the crime are entitled to attend the dispositional hearing and are notified whenever possible in advance when this hearing will be held. Witnesses to the alleged crime also sometimes attend court to offer testimony about whether the accused minor committed the act. Delinquency court hearings are generally staffed by each of the following positions: • One bench officer (judge or commissioner); * One clerk, +� One court reporter; • One bailiff; - 15 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency • One interpreter (as needed); • One probation officer; • One probation clerk; • One deputy district attorney;and • One deputy public defender. In the downtown Martinez courthouse, deputy public defenders and deputy district attorneys may travel among several courtrooms in the course of one morning to represent their clients in several different departments. West County 602 cases are generally heard in Richmond,while East and Central County 602 cases are heard in Martinez. Unlike dependency cases, delinquency cases for East and Central County cases are heard on the same calendars in the Martinez courthouse. In the Richmond courthouse and the Lion's Gate court in Martinez, one deputy public defender and one deputy district attorney generally cover an entire day's worth of hearings. In cases where the child is already in custody at juvenile hall at the time of the hearing, two probation officers transport the child to court. The Lion's Gate court is currently adjacent to but outside of the secured perimeter of the juvenile hall. When construction for the new juvenile hall is complete, this court will likely be relocated within its secured perimeter to increase the safety for juveniles and the officers who transport them. This relocation will also allow the county to reduce personnel costs associated with transporting these minors. Whenever a youth is transported from juvenile hall to court-whether in Richmond, downtown Martinez or the adjacent Lion's Gate facility- at least two probation officers accompany each group of youth. When rival gang members are transported at the same time, these staffing requirements increase to ensure the safety of the young people and that of the staff. If a child is detained at the time of an appearance in court,probations officers from the hall are deployed to bring him into custody. Such occurrences are rare, but might prove particularly costly in the case of an East County delinquency court. As in the dependency court system, the most serious delinquency offenses are always heard by a judge (not a commissioner) in the downtown Martinez courthouse. Vl. The Need.: East County Cases are Growing Everyone interviewed for this report agreed that the need for East County court services is growing and that relevant populations are currently underserved. According to a recent San Francisco Chronicle report of population trends in the Say Area, eastern Contra Costa County is the fastest-growing part of the - 16 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency region." In the Contra Costa County Court Facilities Master Plan, the AOC notes that, "[p]opulation is the single demographic indicator that exhibits consistent change over time and correlates to case filing levels in courts throughout the country."12 Based on population trends alone, it is clear that the need for expanded East County court services will only grow in the coming years. East Country Only Region without Local juvenile Court Access Acknowledging these trends,the Master Plan outlines plans for a new full-service court in Antioch. The new court would include facilities for both juvenile and adult court cases. Construction is tentatively slated to begin by 2007 for this facility.13 California's current budget crisis is likely to delay the construction of any new courts in the near future.14 Due to the urgent need for upgraded and expanded court services throughout California,however,the AOC may seek bond funds to underwrite construction expenses.T5 Currently, Contra Costa County Superior Courts hear juvenile dependency and delinquency cases in four courts: two in Martinez (in the downtown courthouse and the Lion's Gate facility adjacent to the juvenile hall), the courthouse in Richmond, and the Pittsburgh courthouse(juvenile drug court only). East County is the only region of the county that does not have a juvenile court located within the region. A part time juvenile dependency court operated in Antioch for several years in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Court proceedings were held in an Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) building and overseen by a commissioner,with more serious cases referred to a judge in the Martinez court. The reasons for the discontinuation of this court are somewhat unclear and the conditions under which juvenile courts operate have changed since it closed. For instance, CFS is consciously working to differentiate its work from that of the courts to promote greater trust with its clients, making EHSD an inappropriate venue for future court proceedings. The services of the public defender and alternate defender have also been expanded since that time, giving all children a right to their own attorney and ensuring that parents have a right to an attorney as early as the detention phase of the hearing. Fewer lawyers were probably present in the part-time dependency court in East County ten years ago than are present in an average dependency courtroom today. 1=Ryan Kim. "Population fell in S.F.,other parts of Bay Area but Central Valley,Southern California grew by thousands." San Francisco Chronicle. 9 April 2004. 12"Superior Court Facilities Master Plan,"I-9. 13 Ibid.,iv. i4 Interview with Sherry Dorfman,Chief Assistant Court Executive Officer for Contra Costa County, 5 Interview with Lisa Driscoll,Management Analyst in the Contra Costa County Administrator's Office. - 17 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Current Trends in East County Dependency Court Cases Contra Costa County received more than 22,000 calls reporting suspected abuse or neglect of children in 2003.115 Recently, the highest percentage of such calls has originated in East County.17 As shown in Figure 1,East County had the most children who were made dependents of the court of any region of the county in 2000. In 1997,East County had the lowest number of households of the three county regions (shown here in thousands of households), but recent growth would likely alter these numbers by showing significantly more households in East County. Still, the pattern of fewer households with significantly more children in the system is striking. Figure 1: Children in Dependency System18 Given the large and --- East County Has Fewest Households and Most growing number of Children in Dependency dependency cases originating in East 600 536 County,the fact that this 1 500 region is the only part of ¢00 357 — . !a Total Housenoldsni the County Without a 305 I Thousands(1997) dependency court is 300 ■Child Welfare noteworthy. Not only do 200 17 Dependencies(2000),, families in East County 100 7 8 face a higher burden than those in other parts of the county in terms of `�� ce transportation-related ---- -- - - - -- challenges,but it is likely that more families from East County come to court than from other parts of the county.19 Statistics from the juvenile division of the Public Defender's Office show a slightly different pattern than revealed in Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates that while the number of East County cases managed by the PDO is high,West County L6 Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Web site: http://www.ehsd.org/child/childOOl.html. 17 Interview with Stacie Buchanan,Contra Costa County Social Work Supervisor. 18 Lata for this chart were provided by Nina Goldman,Program Manager of Contra Costa County's Service Integration Program. 19 Neither county agencies nor the Contra Costa County Superior Courts track the number of dependency cases by originating city or zip code. I have used these figures and those from the public defender's office(below)as a proxy for measuring the number of dependency cases from each region. - 18 - a East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency dependency cases still dominate the workload in that office.20 The Office of the Court Executive Officer is in the process of acquiring a more sophisticated data tracking system, which should allow the County to better track where cases originated in the coming years. Figure 2: Public Defender Dependency Cases2l -— - ---- West County 300 Public Defender Cases - __-1 ChiWelfare Redesign Outnumber East County Cases Contra Costa County is in the midst of administering 1200 a Child Welfare Redesign laoo -� (CWR) process to move`sooro East toward a more proactive, boa — - ■300 P Mete family-centered approach 400 ___-- --- 0 aoo ro wast 200 ___ -- to child welfare services. 0 This effort is grant-funded, 2001-02 2002-03 and the County is one of -_-___- -____-_— _-- _-_ --_ _ several throughout the state to pilot various approaches to improving service to families with children in the foster care system. As a starting point in the CWR process, CFS administered a"Keeping Children Safe Survey" to establish baseline needs for improved services in four target areas within the county, including both Pittsburgh and Antioch. Although court services were not included as one of the named services in the survey, respondents were asked to generally report on barriers to accessing services. Transportation was listed as one of the most frequent barriers to receiving services; it ranked fourth of five possible barriers among those questioned in both Antioch and Pittsburgh."" Anecdotal evidence led managers within CFS to further explore transportation-related challenges in terms of court access. As noted in the recommendations section of this report, opportunities for improving access to court services until an Antioch court is in place could be pursued in conjunction with the CWR process, as improved integration of court services is part of state and federal efforts to improve child welfare services. 20 The East and Central County numbers in Figure 2 are approximated based on the number of staff within the Public Defender's Office assigned to East and Central county cases,as statistics for these regions are not maintained separately. 21 Data provided by Jack Funk,Juvenile Division Supervisor for East and Central County in the Public Defender's Office. 22 David Hurley. "Keeping Children Safe Survey:Involving Community Members in Decision- Making for Family to Family Communities in Contra Costa County." 2003. 24. _ 19 - 4 , East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Current Trends in East County Delinquency Court Cases As with dependency uses,the proportion of juvenile delinquency cases corning from Fast County is growing. Although no agency currently tracks the number of delinquency cases by originating area of the county,related statistics indicate that incidents of delinquency in East East County Juvenile Arrests Have increased Proportionally Sime 9999 County are increasing. As shown in Figure 3, 2500 while arrests have 2000 — dropped in other parts of i5o0 the county,juveniles 1000 arrested in East County 500- have 00 have remained virtually o -�- unchanged since 1999. 1999 2000 2001 2002 la-East a Central C W est a Other Figure 3:Juvenile Arrest Rattes23 These arrest rates are borne out by County probation Department data, which indicates more East County juveniles receive citations than West or Central County juveniles (see Figure 4). The probation data may indicate,however, that more serious offenses (which require ongoing case supervision by a probation officer) are still more likely to originate in West County. Anecdotally, interviewees also reported a tendency for police to arrest juveniles for less serious infractions in East East County Leads in Juvenile Citations County than they might in West County Has Most Under Supervision I West County. Regional Iwo —— character and police 1400 Ca East citation 200 attitude and training may 1 aCentrat Citations ! have a large effect on the 8 0 W est Citations 600 . a East Supervised number and types of 400 FM ■Centra{SupeNsed arrests carried out. 200 a West Supervised 2002 2003 Figure 4:Juvenile Probation Rates24 The arrest rate trends are reinforced,however, by regional statistics regarding origin of youth who are detained in juvenile hall and the ranch, As shown in Figure 3,while enrollments of West County juveniles in juvenile hall and the ranch have declined since 1997, admissions from East County have increased. As 23 http://justice.hdcdojnet,state.ca.us/cisc_stats. 24 Data provided by Bill Grunert of the Centra Costa County probation Department. - 20 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency of 2003, East County admissions surpassed those of both Central and West County. Figure 5: Admissions to juvenile Hall/the Ranch by County Region25 Trends Show East County Admits Grow While West County Sends At-risk youth who Fewer to Juvenile Hail have acted out by 12oo — — -- -- - — committing 602 1000 _ _ _--__-____ _.___.--._--_.._____! I offenses are at a 800 _ I E key moment in 600 ` - determining 400- whether they will ►- zooIf _ o go on to be 1997 1998 1999 2000 20012002 2003— productive _. _ _ members of ■Admitted from East•Admitted from Central o Admitted from West o Admitted from Other society or continue and possibly escalate criminal behavior as they enter into adulthood. Ready access to juvenile courts encourages these young people to find their way out of the criminal justice system, in that it may be more realistic for them and their parents to comply with ongoing requirements for court appearances. When East County youth and their parents are forced to travel to Martinez for these appearances, opportunities for missing court increase. And by holding court hearings closer to home for these juveniles, it also becomes more likely that victims and witnesses will be able to attend these hearings. The potential benefits of locating a juvenile delinquency court in East County have been observed with the opening of a juvenile drug court in the Pittsburgh courthouse. This court meets one afternoon per week and has experienced an impressive 98% attendance rate over the past year.26 To a significant degree, the community support services available in East County have increased the drug court's success rate. By locating the court within the service area of organizations that work to improve the life chances of at-risk youth, as well as in proximity of a probation department office, the community has pulled together to help these young people find their way to the court through carpools and local buses. The relative proximity of this court has encouraged participation and made transportation coordination feasible."? Even more importantly,parent participation at the Pittsburgh drug court is high. Anecdotal reports indicate that parent attendance can have a significant effect on the outcome of delinquency cases, as parents are able to report to the court about 25 Data provided by Jennifer Deadman of the County Administrator's Office. 26 Interview with Shirley Marchetti,Executive Director of REACH. 27 ibid. - 21 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency the child's behavior patterns and other informal measures of improvement. In general,county workers indicate that juveniles experience a higher quality of justice when parents are able to participate in their court process. East County Court Services are Needed As summarized in the data presented in this section, significant need already exists for both dependency and delinquency court services in East County. Potential alternatives and recommendations for addressing these needs are outlined in the remainder of the report. VII. Criteria for Evaluation and Potential Solutions The rapid and lopsided growth in Contra Costa County creates particular obstacles for county and court administrators. Particularly during this time of fiscal crisis,all public agencies in California are making difficult choices about how to address current and future service needs. The question of how to address court-related needs is complicated by the ongoing transition of facility ownership from the county to the state AOC. With all of these challenges in mind, any changes to the juvenile court system in Contra Costa County must fulfill minimal criteria if they are to be implemented successfully. Criteria far Evaluation A successful policy improvement to the current dearth of services for East County dependency and delinquency court clients should fulfill all or most of these criteria. Criterion#1: Overall efficiency of county workers should enjo ria nef improvement. In the current system,social workers and some probation officers are subjected to massive inefficiencies on days when they attend court. These workers may spend hours waiting around for their case to be called while work piles up in their offices. Moreover, these workers must commute between East County and the court in Martinez on a regular basis. Any efficiency gained by these employees through the alternatives explored below must account for losses in efficiency that might be experienced by other county workers (in the form of increased commute time). Criterion#2: Casts of implementation should be relatively low. Given the difficult financial situation facing both the county and the state, implementation and ongoing operating costs of any alternative should be low. Because responsibility for facility and operating costs is still in transition between agencies, low costs are particularly 'important. - 22 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Criterion#3: Service provision should be improved for a significant percentage of East County families with children in the"uvenile court system The need to improve service to these families is clear. Therefore, most alternatives worthy of consideration should make improved court access a priority. Criterion#4: Expanded court service should lead to an improvement in longi term court service efficiency. Whether an alternative meets this criterion is particularly difficult to measure. Some ways in which the court might see such improvements might be through improved compliance, increased efficiency due to improved family/child participation and/or reduced recidivism. Even if it is difficult to project with certainty whether an alternative explicitly meets this criterion, it is worthwhile keeping this standard in mind when evaluating potential recommendations. Alternatives not Considered Potential policy solutions to address the current challenges of poor client access and worker inefficiency in the current system range from changing the timing and structure of court hearings to physically moving the court to relying on technological advances in order to bring the court virtually closer to its clients. When evaluating these solutions according to the criteria listed above, however, several alternatives were eliminated early in the analysis due to a lack of political, technical, and/or financial feasibility, or because they were outside of the scope of this project. The most significant of these alternatives are discussed briefly here, and may be worthy of further consideration at a later date when more resources and/or more advanced technologies are available. Videoconferencint; The use of videoconferencing technology to allow county workers and East County families to virtually commute to court was considered but eliminated for three main reasons: 1. Such technology has been used and found ineffective in the county in adult criminal cases.zs 2. The advantages of informal and off-the-record attorney-client interactions that take place during or before court hearings would be lost if clients (including social workers) were not physically present to speak with their attorneys. 3. The costs of investing in such technology are likely to be quite high,and given the uncertainty presented by factors #1 and #2, are not justifiable given the current budget shortfall. ze Interview with David Coleman,Contra Costa County Public.Defender. - 23 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Night Court The possibility of moving some juvenile court hearings to evening hours was explored with several of the individuals interviewed for this project. Although moving some court times to evening hours might improve access to courts for some families (by allowing parents to work for most or all of the business day before attending court, and/or allowing families to travel to Martinez at off-peak hours),the degree to which such a move would be an improvement is unclear. Without more information about the needs and specific challenges facing families with cases in the system, the outcomes of implementing such a change are extremely difficult to predict. Moreover, several department directors expressed concern over the challenge of changing union contracts to accommodate such a significant change in staffing patterns. Given the uncertainty of benefit and likely high political cost,this option did not receive further consideration. However, this option might be worthy of study if the Pittsburgh court could be made available for evening hearings. See the medium- term recommendations at the end of the report for more discussion on this topic. Improved Public Transportation Creating a strategy to improve the public transportation system in past and Central County is beyond the scope of this analysis. See the final section regarding;recommended next steps for a more detailed discussion on the role of improving public transportation in addressing public court access. Potentially.Feasible Alternatives In light of the criteria outlined above,five potentially realistic policy solutions to the currently limited East County juvenile court access are discussed here. This section outlines the qualitative challenges and advantages associated with each of these alternatives. Estimated staff and public costs are presented for each alternative at the end of this section. Option#1. No change to the current system. Although the current system is imperfect,few of the individuals interviewed for this report believed that a significant number of families and juveniles miss their court appearances due to difficulties with transportation. In reality, most county and court workers who interact with court clients see them in court at the time they expect them, leaving these workers with the impression that the problem is either non-existent or minimal at worst. Moreover, given the current budget crisis, expanding services of any type would be a challenge for the county and the courts at this time. Only when speaking with county workers who have a more intimate knowledge of the challenges facing court clients do access problems become more apparent. -24- East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency East County juveniles and their families face an unfair burden in time and travel costs under the current system in comparison with similar populations from other regions of the county. Leaving the status quo in place indefinitely would allow these deficiencies to worsen. While the work of East County-based social workers could be made more efficient by moving dependency court to East County, the overall costs (including capital/rental costs) to the county are lower under the current system than they would be if such a court were in place. Option#2: Stagger start times for'juvenile court hearings Given the long travel times associated with driving or taking public transportation to Martinez from East County, staggered start times could make traveling to court more reasonable for East County juvenile court clients. Particularly in the case of delinquency hearings,which are heard on the same calendars as Central County hearings,factoring city of origin into calendaring decisions could be a workable option. Implementing staggered delinquency start times may not be feasible until more information is known about the ratio between East and Central County delinquency cases. The number of cases is not currently tracked by city or region of origin, making it difficult for the court to accurately gauge whether implementing this solution would increase inefficiency in the courts. If most cases heard on the East-Central delinquency calendars originate in East County, attorneys and court personnel could find themselves waiting for the first East County case to arrive on days where few if any Central cases were scheduled. Once the court's advanced data tracking system is in place, tracking such statistics should be possible and would allow further analysis of this option. Staggering start times for dependency court would likely prove more challenging, as East County cases are scheduled on specific days of the week and are not intermixed with Central County cases. Because access to transportation is uncertain for many of these families, it would also prove difficult to make equitable decisions as to which individuals would have a harder time getting to court early in the morning and would therefore be more worthy of a later start time. It is not unreasonable to imagine that some of these clients might unexpectedly find themselves taking public transportation to court when they believed they would have access to a car. Moreover, although 8.30am is a very early start time for parents traveling from the distant reaches of the county,both the families and the courts benefit from this early start time in the case of detention hearings. Because of the proximity of the Public Defender's Office to the courthouse,parents who would like to be - 25 - 4' East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency represented by a public defender in a detention hearing can be referred to a lawyer at 8:30am and still have their case heard at 1:30pm on the same day. As a result,this first critical stage of the case proceeds quickly and with representation for the parents. In addition.,because these cases involve the health and safety of children,it is imperative that the bench officers be givers an opportunity to evaluate the mental and physical state of the parents. Bench officers and attorneys alike have argued that seeing parents in court early in the morning can play an important role in forming accurate impressions. Staggered start times should have little to no cost for the courts or the county. Successful implementation of this option would require significant cooperation between the courts (specifically, the Supervising Juvenile Judge) and the county. Cation#3: Hold a part-time juvenile court in East County. Holding juvenile court hearings in East County would affect three main types of costs: 1) those related to the physical court space; 2)staffing costs of county employees; and 3) travel time casts to the court client. A part time court would require securing of appropriate space for court hearings (ie., with security and,ideally, several separate waiting areas). Related costs would probably fall to the courts, although until the transition of court facilities from the county to the state is complete, the county may have to underwrite some portion of these expenses. The staffing costs associated with moving delinquency court hearings to East County would vary significantly from moving dependency cases to the region. Neither the District Attorney's office nor the Public Defenders office would be able to service an additional juvenile delinquency court in East County with current staffing levels;most likely,one additional deputy attorney in each of these offices would be needed to service such a court. In the current system, these lawyers cover East and Central County cases on the same calendar; if they were in a courtroom.in Antioch or Brentwood, that system would no longer be tenable. In addition,significantly more lawyers participate in a morning's worth of dependency cases than of delinquency cases, and all of these county workers would have to commute to an East County court. In terms of increasing efficiency,however, the nine court social workers who currently commute to Martinez on court days would be able to return to their offices between cases. If all dependency hearings were held in East County,coordinating the inclusion of public defenders in detention hearings would be difficult, leading to one of three outcomes: - 26 - µ East County Juvenile Courts;Access and Efficiency 1) If only one public defender were sent to East County court,parents who wish to use the services of a public defender would have to travel to Martinez for an intake interview and would have their case carried over to the next day in court,which would likely also be in Martinez. 2) If only one public defender were sent to East County for court days, more East County parents might opt to proceed without representation in detention hearings, a choice that could have a detrimental effect on the final outcome of their case. 3) The public defender's office could send two attorneys for each day of East County court to facilitate continuing the detention hearing on the same afternoon that a case is first brought before a judge. Such an arrangement would likely require hiring additional public defender staff. One way to mitigate these detention-specific challenges would be to leave all East County detention hearings in Martinez. Such a move would allow families an opportunity to be assigned a lawyer and have their case heard that same afternoon. For juveniles and families who have cases in the court system,locating a part time dependency or delinquency court in East County would surely be a benefit. Youth who have committed 602 offenses are more likely to comply with court hearings, and therefore less likely to be caught in a cycle of escalating offenses. These families would also save significant amounts of time and money on travel and face fewer personal costs in other parts of their lives whether in taking less time off of work or not having find alternate child care for children not involved in the case before the court. Last,victims,witnesses and other participants in hearings (such as psychiatrists) would be more likely to attend court. Option #4. Create workspace in Martinez for social workers. A large amount of the worker inefficiency in the current system is a result of uncertainty regarding how much time any given social worker will have to spend in court on a day that she has a case on the calendar. When a part time dependency court was located in Antioch, these court workers were able to return to their offices between cases and were paged to return to court at the appropriate time. With all court cases heard in Martinez, many of these workers spend hours on court days waiting for their case to be called with no permanent, networked workspace available for them to use in proximity of the court. Locating a workspace in downtown Martinez would help reduce inefficiency for these social workers by providing them with a quiet area for completing reports and other paperwork. Ideally, this workspace would be equipped with at least one computer(or a computer hook-up to) the state's Child Welfare - 27 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Services/Case Management System(CWS/CMS) database,into which social workers file all case reports. Unlike court employees and attorneys, social workers must pass through security every time they reenter the courthouse. Because of this arrangement, some of the individuals interviewed expressed trepidation about the idea of having a workspace outside of the secured court, as waiting for social workers to reenter the court building could lead to a delay in court proceedings. The county's director of facilities believes that space could be made available in the downtown Martinez area in proximity of the court,where a phone line and/or computers could be located. However, a space within the courthouse would be far preferable due to the security issues mentioned here. Recently,Supervising juvenile Judge Lois Haight has made a makeshift space available for social workers in the courthouse. This option would look to formalizing this arrangement in the hope of making such space available on a permanent basis, thus allowing for the possibility of installing a CWS/CMS computer. Option#5: Open a full-time East County court to hold hearings for delinquency and dep ,gndency cases. The AOC has already identified Antioch/East County as a priority area for expansion of court services. The AOC estimates the capital costs for the court facility alone at$41.8 million. This estimate does not include auxiliary offices and services that would need to be underwritten by the county, such as satellite offices for the public and alternate defenders and the district attorney. Both anecdotal evidence and population/service level projections from the AOC indicate that such a court is needed. If resources were unlimited,a new court would be the preferred option. However, everyone who was interviewed for this report commented that such a court is unlikely to be built in the near future, as both the AOC and the county face severe budget constraints as of May 2404. -28 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Table 1: Costs &Efficiency Irn rovements of East CountyCourt O tions29 Option Time Costs to Staff Costs to County+ AnnualChange Public oun Public Costs in Staff Costs Current situation$98,000 $218,000 $315,000 $0 Staggered $88,000 $218,000 $306,000 delinquency start times Part time $40,000 $86,000 $126,000 Efficiency gain dependency $132,000 curt in East County Workspace for $98,000 $153,000 $251,000 Efficiency gain social workers in $65,000 Martinez (in courthouse) Part time 58,000 347,000 8405,000 ;: �� <.: delinquency <� court in East County 1...J Full time court $0 $688,000 $688,000 F h } J in East County t Table 1 summarizes changes in county staffing expenses and public travel time costs that would be associated with each of the policy options presented. Note that these figures are limited to staffing expenses because the uncertainty associated with estimating the expense of leasing or constructing appropriate court space in East County is too high for meaningful projections to be possible at this time. While the county would gain significantly in terms of worker efficiency in establishing workspace in Martinez for social workers or expanding dependency court into East County, these benefits should not be read as actual reductions in county staffing costs. Rather, these benefits would more appropriately be understood as having positive effects on worker morale and productivity and on reducing commute times for county workers. Conversely, at least some of the costs associated with a part time East County delinquency court and a full time East County juvenile court reflect actual additions to the county payroll in order 29 See Appendix B for methodology. -29 - East;CountyJuvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency to adequately staff such services. These additions are labeled as"increased staff costs" in the chart. Court-related costs that are reimbursed to the county by the State Administrative Office of the Courts were not included in these calculations,although if any of these recon-un:endations move forward further study of such expenses would likely be necessary. fart-time court options may well require cooperation between the state and the county for funding of facilities. VIII. Recommendations Contra Costa.County should consider working in cooperation with the Contra Costa Superior Court to implement the following short-, medium.-and long-term recommended policy changes. Short Tenn Recommendations In the short run, the county should focus on low cost policy options that could lead to improvements in client access and worker efficiency with relatively low implementation costs. County administrators would need to work closely with court administrators in order for these suggestions to be put into practice. Short-Term Recommendation#1: Provide workspace in an ongoing and permanent way within the downtown Martinez courthouse for East Cour Y social workers. This recommendation could only be implemented with the cooperation and support of the Superior Court. Further investigations should be pursued as to the feasibility of making a CWS/CMS computer available within such a workspace. If workspace is only available outside of the courthouse in downtown Martinez, the Department of Employment and Human Services should make a formal request to the Judicial Executive Committee to consider allowing social workers to enter the courts without passing through security (as is currently done by members of the bar, bench officers and some court workers). Short-Term.Recommendation#2: Take re 'on of the coun1y into account when scheduling court calendars for juvenile delinquency cases. The purpose of establishing a later call time for East County juveniles would be to limit the barriers that prevent at-risk youth and their families from successfully meeting the demands of the court. Under the current system, each bench officer has the discretion to determine what criteria to use in setting the order in which cases will be heard on any given calendar. An argument would - 30- East County juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency have to be made to the Supervising Juvenile Judge that using location as a criterion for scheduling would be worthwhile before this recommendation could be implemented. Medium-Term Recommendations The recommendations discussed in this section are likely to carry significant costs for both the county and the court. Because administrators in both agencies acknowledge the need and likely expansion of court services to East County in the foreseeable future, the medium-term recommendations are aimed at scaling services up in East County until a full service court is available in the area. Note that although the gains in efficiency in terms of staffing appeared in Table 1 to be quite high for a part-time dependency court,capital costs associated with this recommendation moved it into the medium-term. The largest obstacle associated with extending part time juvenile court services to East County would likely be locating appropriate space for court hearings. Depending on when these medium-term recommendations are implemented, the county and court may need to work cooperatively to find a location for providing these services. In this context, it may behoove the county to consider hearing juvenile court cases in the evenings at the Pittsburgh courthouse. As this courthouse is currently functioning at full capacity, holding juvenile court hearings there in the evenings might allow the county to bring court services closer to constituents while maximizing use of current facilities. Despite the potential benefits, the labor-related political challenges of extending court hearings into the evening would still need to be addressed before such an option could be seriously considered. If evening hearings in Pittsburgh are not deemed a viable alternative,the county and courts should investigate the possibility of using other public buildings that already have security systems in place (perhaps a local city hall) to.help reduce the costs associated with ensuring that a space is compatible with court security specifications. Medium-Term Recommendation#1; Establish a art-time devendency court in East County. Due to the significant potential gains in staff efficiency associated with moving dependency court to East County,part time court services should first be extended to all such hearings except detention hearings, The benefits associated with keeping detention hearings in Martinez until a satellite public defender's office is established in East County outweigh any benefits that accompany moving detention hearings to the satellite court. East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Medium-Term Recommendation#2: Establish apart-time delinquency court in East County. The county and courts also should look to expand delinquency courts on a part time basis in East County as soon as it is financially and logistically feasible. Lung-Term:Recommendation As soon as funds are available, the AOC should construct and operate a full- service juvenile court in East County. The county should then meet that commitment by funding the construction and operation of relevant auxiliary offices to support the court. Looking to the.Future Bath the county and the courts are data poor regarding the demographic make- up and service needs of the East County population served by the juvenile courts. More detailed information about these East County residents would enable the county to snake educated choices about the urgency and types of service needs faced by this group. The county and the court should work together to better understand the needs of families who have children in the juvenile court system. For instance, the Office of the Court Executive is in the process of transferring case management data into a search friendly data management system. Once the system is in place,county agencies should work with the courts to gain a deeper understanding of the number and types of juvenile cases that originate from different regions of the county. The county and courts might also cooperate in administering a scientifically sound survey to better understand ghat changes in service offerings might help these families access the courts. Specifically,the county and courts would be better able to make sound policy adjustments with accurate data on issues including: • The number and type of juvenile court cases broken out by city and/or zip code; • The number of children and families who have cases that go through both the delinquency and the dependency court systems in.the county, • The number of travel vouchers issued to families,and the specific services accesses through those vouchers (i.e.,how many vouchers were used to help families get to court); • Whether moving court services to evening hours would be an improvement for clients; and • The average travel time spent when families go to court. - 32 - East County juvenile Courts;Access and Efficiency Traffic congestion and a need for improved public transportation are likely to persist as ongoing challenges for Contra Costa County residents. As a first step toward better understanding the needs of those who live in East County, the county should consider administering a survey to quantify the transportation needs and challenges faced by this group. Once baseline information is established,county administrators should work with this population to lobby public transportation agencies for improved services in the most underserved areas.30 Improved transportation would help East County residents attend court and generally access county services more easily. The county should include the concerns outlined in this report in its ongoing Child Welfare Redesign work. Integrating access to the courts as part of overall service provision plans for children in need should be a priority in the CWR process. The CWR should include both dependency and delinquency cases in its evaluation of access to court services, as the choices made by at-risk youth can have effects on their reliance on public services for the rest of their lives. Armed with more information,the courts and county can work together to ensure that the limited available resources are deployed in the most efficient manner possible. 30 See"North Richmond Gets Its Buses Back"for guidance on how Richmond residents collaborated with county workers and AC Transit to improve bus service to underserved areas. - 33 - East County Juvenile Courts;Access and Efficiency Appendix A. List of Interviews With the exception of employees of non-profit organizations and the Superior Courts (*),all individuals listed here worked for a Contra Costa County agency at the time of the interview. Steven Bautista Chief Probation Officer probation Department Jarrell Brown Director of Recruitment CASA of Contra Costa &Training County* Stacie Buchanan Social Work Supervisor II Children&Family Services Penelope Cannon Court Officer Children&Family Services David Coleman Public Defender Public Defender's Office Jennifer Deadman Management Analyst County Administrator's Office Sherry Caraballo Chief Assistant Court Superior Court/Court Dorfman Executive Officer Executive's Office* Lisa Driscoll Management Analyst County Administrator's Office Tim Farley Administrative Analyst, Board of Supervisors District V Jack Funk. Juvenile Division Public Defender's Office Supervising Attorney Federal Glover Supervisor,District V Board of Supervisors Nina Goldman Program Manager Service Integration Program David Grossi Chief Deputy Probation Probation Department Officer,Field Programs Bill Grunert juvenile Division Probation Department Manager Hon. Lois Haight Presiding Judge,Juvenile Superior Court* Division. David Hurley Child Welfare Redesign Human Services Consultant Consulting* - 34 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Roland Katz Supervising Business Public Employees Union Agent Local 1* Robert Kochly District Attorney District Attorney's Office Hon.Judith Lawrence Commissioner Pro Tem Superior Court* Laura Lockwood Director of Capital County Administrator's Facilities &Debt Office Management Vincent Manuel Chief of Staff, District V Board of Supervisors Shirley Marchetti Executive Director REACH* Sandy Marsh Program Manager Mental Health Department Ray Merritt Division Manager Children& Family Services Karen Mitchoff Administrative Services Employment &Human Analyst Services Department Karen Moghtader Deputy Public Defender Public Defender's Office Karen Ortega Juvenile Court Services Superior Court* Coordinator Michelle Paterson Social Work Supervisor Children& Family Services Jim Picco Juvenile Division District Attorney's Office Manager Valerie Ranche Assistant County County Counsel's Office Counsel,Juvenile Dependency Division George Roemer Senior Deputy County County Administrator's Administrator,Justice Office Systems - 35 - East County Juvenile Courts;Access and Efficiency Appendix B:Technical Methodology This appendix details the sources of data and assumptions made in calculating the information presented in the figures and the table featured in the report. Figure 1: Children in Dependency System Nina Goldman,Program Manager of the Contra Costa County Service Integration Program, provided the data for this chart. Figure 2: Pubic Defender Dependency Cases Jack Punk provided the data for this chart via email. The Public Defender's Office does not currently break out the number of dependency cases between Central and East County. Because there are two deputy public defenders who work on Central County 300 cases and two and a half(full time equivalent) deputy public defenders assigned to East County cases,these staffing patterns were used to estimate the number East vs. Central County cases. Records of West County cases are managed separately. Figure 3: Juvenile Arrest Rates Bonnie Collins of the California Department of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Center provided these data via email. Figure 4: Juvenile Probation Bates Bill Grunert of the Contra Costa County probation department provided the data for this chart. The number of citations represents the number of juvenile delinquency cases referred to probation through arrest. Not all juveniles who are referred to probation must appear before a judge. Those under supervision have either admitted to the charges brought against them or those charges have been found true in court, and they are therefore required to fulfill sanctions assigned to them under the supervision of a probation officer. Figure 5: Admissions to juvenile HalVthe Ranch by County Regions Jennifer Deadman in the County Administrator's Office provided monthly summaries of admissions to the hall and the ranch for the years featured in this chart. Table 1 Table 1 summarizes costs and estimated savings to the county and the public associated with each of the policy options analyzed in this report. Costs included here are primarily time costs,with personnel costs included when an option would require the hiring of additional personnel in order to meet minimum levels of service. Although state personnel might face higher transportation costs for some of the options included in the report, the table only reflects changes in costs to Contra Costa County. -36 - e East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency The wage used for the public is the average wage for the census region that includes Contra Costa County as established by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics ($21.06/hour) averaged with state minimum wage ($6.75).31 Unless otherwise noted in the chart below,county employee wages were obtained through the county human resources website. Department Position Average ! Hourly Wage Monthly 1 including+30% Salaly in benefits Children &Family Social Worker32 $5457.60 $44.34 Services Children&Family Social Work 1 $6216.37 ! $,50.50 Services Supervisor Ii (for I Court Officer) i County Counsel Deputy County ; $6760.84 $54.94 Counsel - Basic District Attorney Deputy District 1 $8800.76 $71.50 Attornev -- Basic Probation Deputy Probation $4676.02 $37.99 Officer II 1 Probation Probation Clerk33 $4583.33 $28.64 Public Defender Deputy Public $6708.85 $54.51 Defender II (Alternate Defender The following assumptions were used in calculating travel time costs: • 50 parents and 30 children travel each week to dependency court. 70% of these people were assumed to take public transportation. • 20 parents and 40 children travel each week to delinquency court. 70% of these people were assumed to take public transportation. • Costs for two public defenders, two alternate defenders, one county counsel,nine court social workers and one court supervisor were used to estimate costs for dependency courts. 31 See the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics(http://www.bis.gov/oes/2002/oes 5775.htm)and the Federal Department of Labor(http://w'Aw.dol.goy_/esa/rninwageZamtrica.htrn)web sites for detailed information. 32 Per Penelope Cannon. 33 Per Steven Bautista. - 37 - S4 East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency • Costs for one public defender,one district attorney,one probation officer and one probation clerk were used to estimate delinquency court costs. • Benefits were included at the rate of 30% for county worker wages. No benefits were included in the public's wages. • Travel time between Martinez and East County was calculated at 2 hours/day for workers and 30% of the public (presumed to have car access), and 5 hours/day for the remaining 70% of the public (due to likely reliance on public transportation). • When an option indicated the need for additional staff to be hired, the full time equivalent of a position required to fulfill that need was calculated. For instance,in the case of a part time delinquency court, the increase in staffing costs for the public defender's office and the district attorney's office were assumed to be 40% FTE for each additional lawyer. Alternatives that would require hiring additional staff are identified by the phrase "increased staff costs." Other changes in county costs are due to changes in net travel time for county employees or in efficiency of use of workday time. The recently updated World Bank travel time methodology was used to calculate the value of commute time for the public and county employees. The study recommends, "a common value of time to be used for non-work journeys unless there is strong local evidence to the contrary with a default value of 30% of household income per hour being used for the valuation of non-work time."34 Costs to the county were estimated on a similar principle, as recommended by the study. As the time spent commuting is time that would otherwise be productive time for county employees, all county employee commute times were calculated at the rate of 133% of the hourly wage. In the case of providing workspace for social workers in the downtown Martinez court, gains were measured according to increased efficiency for these workers. It was assumed that under the current system the nine court workers lose an average of two hours of productive work time on court days (i.e., 18 hours lost per dependency court day in inefficiency). This inefficiency was assumed to be reduced to a total of four hours per workday,with the majority of work time lost regained through the availability of appropriate workspace for these county employees. 34 Kenneth M.Gwilliam."The Value of Time in Economic Evaluation of Transport projects lessons from Recent Research."The World Bank:Infrastructure Notes. May 2004. 2. - 38 - } t Y East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency Staggering start times for delinquency cases was assumed to reduce travel time for families attending delinquency court due to the avoidance of traveling during rush hour. These times were reduced by one hour for those taking public transportation and by 30 minutes for those driving to court. - 39 - East County Juvenile Courts:Access and Efficiency X. References Bardach,Eugene,Timothy Deal and Mary Walther. North Richmond Gets Its Buses Back:How a Poor Com uni and an Urban Transit Agency Struck Up a Partnership. 1999. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California. California Department of Transportation,District 4, Oakland,Office of Highway Operations. 199. S HighM ayongestion Monitorin &Bort. 1998. Contra Costa County. Children's Report Card 2003. 2003. "Kids are everybody's business!" Contra Costa Coun Children's Report Card. 1938. "Fids are everybody's business!" Data Indicators Update: Contra Costa County Children's Report Card. 2000. Gwilliam, Kenneth M. "The Value of Time in Economic Evaluation of Transport Projects: Lessons from Decent Research." The Wand Bank: Infrastructure Notes OT-S, May 2004: 1-4. Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. Leadin justice Into the Future: Operational Plan for California's Ludicial Plan, Fiscal Years 2003-2004 through 2005-2006. 2001 Strategic Plan: Leadingjustice Into the Future. 2000. Statewide Court Facilities Master Plan:Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. 2003. Profile:judicial Council of California. 2€103. Hurley, David. Keeping Children Safe Survey: Involving Community Members in Decision-Making for Family to Family Communities in Contra Costa County. 2003. Kim, Ryan. "Population fell in S.F.,other parts of Bay Area but Central Valley, Southern California grew by thousands." San Francisca Chronicle, 9 April 2004. www.sfgate.com. 20 April 2004. -40 - East County Juvenile Courts.Access and Efficiency U.S. Congress, House. Report of the Government Accounting Office to the Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means on Juvenile Courts_Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. 1999, www:access. o. ov c i-bin etdoc.c '?dbname= ao&docid=f:he99013.txt. 30 March 2004. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques,Estimates and Implications." Jane 2003. hM://www.vtl2i.orgZtca/. 20 April 2004. -41 - LOIS HAIGH'i` RJDGE Department 10 925-646-4010 COUNTY OF CON'TM COSTA 726 Court Street P.C. Box 811 Martinez,CA 84563-0081 September 27, 2004 Ms. Florence McAuley, Chair Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee SQ Douglas Drive, Suite 201 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. McAuley. Thank you for providing me last week with the full study report prepared for JSPAC by doctoral student, Nina Erlich. l read this report with great interest as it documented the longstanding needs of Contra Costa's East County community for more accessible juvenile court services. l appreciate the opportunity to comment on this report, particularly concerning the historical account of juvenile court services in East County and the termination of those services in mid-1995. Ms. Erlich's investigation was founded on qualitative information gathered from informational interviews with a considerable number of people involved in juvenile court and related services. She interviewed me, as well as Chief Assistant Court Executive Officer, Sherry Caraballo Dorfman, from the Court. Seth Ms. Dorfman and l have clear recall of the Social Services Department, now Employment and Human Services Department(EHSD), decision to terminate the court's use of Antioch facilities in 1995. Ms. Erlich's report, however, glosses over this event, citing on page 17 that"the reasons for the discontinuation of this court are somewhat unclear." l take issue with this representation as misleading. In fact, termination of Juvenile Court operations in Antioch was a decision made unilaterally by EHSD on very short notice - less than 60 days. This EHSD decision left the Court with very few options and little time to create suitable alternatives. l personally met with Ms. Fabella and other high level EHSD management to urge reconsideration of this decision for the very same reasons Ms. Erlich's report documents the need today-- inconvenience for families and children, lack of transportation alternatives, longer commute times for staff attending court. These reasons were compelling then, just as they are today--but EHSD stood firm in their decision. The court's options were severely limited. The Delta Municipal Court, located in Pittsburg, was nota viable alternative. At that time courts were not unified and the municipal courts stood independent of the Superior Court, which included Juvenile Court services. Even so, the Pittsburg Court itself was already bursting at the seams. The overflow of cases had several years prior forced the installation of a portable trailer behind the courthouse to increase space capacity. More important still, this court facility shared space with a Contra Costa County ChildrenChildren & Family Services A Bureau of the Employment and Human services Department October 6, 2004 Ms. Florence McAuley, Chair We worry Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee with f3zn;hes 50 Douglas Drive, Suite .201 to ensure Martinez, CA 94553 the safety of Dear Ms. McCauley, their children This letter is a further response to my remarks given at the Family and and to Human Services Committee meeting on Monday, September 27, 2004, assist thern regarding JSPAC and the Advanced Policy Analysis by Master's Candidate Nina L. Erlich-Williams and to the letter from Honorable Lois J.Haight in in rtttchii response to that report. their full' Potential. The report mentions a need for an East County Court and discusses the fact that there had been a Juvenile Court in East County that focused on Dependency matters. The decision to discontinue the location of the Juvenile Dependency Court in EHSD's Antioch office was based on the need for additional space required by the new, state-mandated, CalV4'ORKs Danna Fabella program. I agree with Judge Haight's assessment that the reason for Di:rectar terminating the court's presence in the building was not unclear, as stated on page 17 of Ms. Erlich-Williams' report. However, I do wish to respectfully nate that EHSD did not have other alternatives available to it for housing the CalWORKs program. Please recall this was at the height of the Welfare Reform movement throughout the nation, and there were high expectations, with little or no room for obstacles or barriers,to its success. We were expected to "make it work." Mr. Erlich-Williams notes on page 28 that Judge' had made a "makeshift" space available for social workers in the courthouse. The Department is quite appreciative of having space made available for staff and regrets the use of the word "makeshift" by the researcher. However, there appears to be some confusion by staff as to which.room it is that has been made available: Room 217 or Room 219. Room 217 is a rather large space that has two couches, a few chairs, and overhead lighting. It is child friendly and has a televisionNCR. There are a variety of movies and a few 40 Douglas Drive+ Martinez, CA 94553 books and toys. This room is used for victims and witnesses and children from all of the courts on the first floor. At times,the room is used by attorneys to privately "interview" and/or talk with their clients before they testify. When this happens, others must leave the room. Room 219 is a ten-by-ten roam with two rectangular tables and chairs and two overhead fluorescent lights. The room must be unlocked by a bailiff/sheriff. The room has been used for social workers to complete paperwork and as a waiting area for child clients when room 217 is full. Tangential concerns to the need for a permanent and sole-use room for social workers are the financial, logistical and technical issues related to locating a CWS/CMS computer in the room. The cast for computer hardware would be about $5,500. It should be noted that we have experienced technical problems at other off-site locations because of connectivity issues at the location outside the CW SKIS wide area network. Of significant concern would be airflow and air-conditioning since the computer is quite sensitive. In summary, while the Department supports the development of an East County Courtroom, we recognize that given the current budget crises in the State and County, it is not feasible at this time. We will continue to explore with the Court ways that we can reduce staff's waiting time and to clarify the use of the room that the court developed for worker's use. Sincerely, Danna Fabella Director, Children and Family Services DF/cb Cc: Hon. 'Leis.Haight