JDCA 2008 and Juvenile Court Initiatives

1. JDCA 2008 and Juvenile Court Initiatives

2. Individual rights Meaningful court participation Comprehensible hearings Individualized treatment Diverse needs Court Accountability Court Facilities Collaboration Case Management Professional Commitment Professional Education Resources Recommendations/ Areas of Inquiry

3. Research methodology • 5 statewide mail surveys • Studies in 6 counties (Los Angeles, Placer, Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Siskiyou) • 30 interviews • 25 focus groups

4. AOC Initiatives in Juvenile Delinquency • Performance Measures Pilot: court and youth performance • Judicial workload study • Effective Participation in Juvenile Court

5. Effective Court Participation

6. Common Findings Across Court Users Multiple barriers to participation Distrust of juvenile court’s purpose Lack of comprehensible hearings Youth do not understand the impact of their crimes

7. Court User Perceptions Barriers to participation Wait Times/delays/continuances No voice Victims needing more information Distrust of juvenile court’s purpose System exists only to process cases Exists only to provide jobs for court staff System sets youth up for failure Lack of comprehensible hearings

8. Youth Perspectives No voice in the process Court only focuses on the negative System exists to provide jobs for court staff/sets youth up for failure Lack of understanding of the impact of their crime Did not understand what was happening in court

9. Parent Perspectives • Don’t understand court process • No voice in hearing, want more involvement • Wait times at court, hearing continuances problematic

10. Parent Perspectives “You’re really not allowed to participate. You’re not allowed into the process… They’re supposed to be in the juvenile system at that point, but it’s like they’re an adult. I mean, that’s it, you don’t see them, you can’t; they’re not your child anymore.”

11. Victim Perspectives Informed inconsistently of rights, role, and details of case Little help in understanding court process Wanted a single point of contact Believe process is disorganized Believe system discourages their involvement

12. Victim Perspectives “I’d sit out there in the hall and wait until I got invited in, which frankly didn’t sit well with me. I mean, I was the victim, and yet I was treated like a criminal basically.” “I got a business to run, too, and I wanted to be there, I wanted to be involved in the process, and they made it very difficult.”

13. Victim Perspectives Infrequent full or (acceptable) partial restitution Juvenile court professionals also expressed dissatisfaction with restitution setting and collection

14. Court Users - Recommendations • Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers should take the time necessary to help youth, parents, and victims understand the court process, the outcomes of the court hearings, and the orders of the court. • When delays are unavoidable, the judicial officer and attorneys should explain the reason for them to the parties involved, so as to maintain transparency and confidence in the process • Courts should support victims by ordering restitution in a specific amount, making restitution payment a priority, and encouraging other methods of victim restoration as appropriate

15. Court Users: Upcoming projects • Videos about delinquency court • Restitution project • Court users experience - pilot project and evaluation

16. Case Processing and Hearing Effectiveness

17. Effective Case Processing • Hearing timeliness • Quality of legal advocacy, supervision, and court reports • Time to consider information, conduct meaningful hearings, make appropriate inquiries • Individualized attention and appropriate findings and orders

18. Compromises in research • Court file review unfeasible statewide • Lack of court case management systems • Lack of information about youth outcomes • Opinion data difficult to defend when stakeholders disagree in their responses

19. Attorney Representation • JO’s satisfied with attorney advocacy, preparedness • Less satisfied with post-dispositional representation • Want attorneys to know more about community resources • Want defense to visit youth

20. Probation Reports • JO’s satisfied with probation reports in general • MH, schools - less satisfied with avail and quality of info • Want better info about kids while on probation, esp home

21. Hearing Management • Timeliness & delays • Prosecutors and court users most dissatisfied with delays • ½ of judicial officers regularly complete their calendars to their satisfaction • Disagreement on causes of delay • Solutions: Resources, differential case management, scheduling

22. Courtroom and Court Relations • Major stakeholders report good relationships with each other (PD, DA, probation, courts) • Attorneys satisfied with courtroom relations • Majority of PO’s satisfied with court-agency relations; very dissatisfied with how they are treated in court (contested hearings?)

23. Case processing and hearng effectiveness: Upcoming projects Defense representation project Pilot Court Performance Measures Project Judicial Workload Study

24. For More Information • www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc • Iona Mara-Drita at iona.mara-drita@jud.ca.gov415-865-7563