Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

Home
Up
Jail
Juvenile
DA
Patrol
Sheriff
Animal
Corrections

 

JOSEPHINE COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

 

Jon Whalen and Mike Walker, Co-Authors

Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015 (Study Design)

JS&PSS Exploratory Committee

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

Web Page: http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm

 

•      November 23,  2015 Letter/Email To Jim Goodwin, Director, JO CO Juvenile Justice (JJ), From Committee

        Subject: Share Information About JO CO’s JS&PSS Problem/Issue

 

•      January 20, 2016 Letter/Email To Jim Goodwin, Director, JO CO JJ, From Committee

        Subject: Share Information About JO CO’s JS&PSS Problem/Issue

 

•      March 28, 2016 Letter/Email To Jim Goodwin, Director, JO CO JJ Dept., From Committee

        Subject: Learn About JO CO’s Juvenile Justice Budget Program

•       April 4, 2016 Letter/Email to Josephine County Board of County Commissioners from Exploratory Committee.  Juvenile Justice copied.
        Subject:  Minimally Acceptable Level Of Public Safety Services (MALPSS)

 

•      May 14, 2016 Letter/Email To Jim Goodwin, Director, JO CO JJ Dept., From Committee

        Subject:  Observations After Studying JO CO JJ Dept. Adopted Budgets: FY 2015-16 & FY 2010-11

•      May 26, 2016 Letter/Email to Josephine County Board of County Commissioners from Exploratory Committee on Citizen’s Guides To The Budget.  Juvenile Justice copied.

       Subject: Citizens' Guides To The Budget

 

Josephine County Juvenile Justice Public Safety Services

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 27, 2016. Josephine County Juvenile Justice Public Safety Services. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR. (This Document).

 

Purpose/Outline

Web Links By Chapter?

 

Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 27, 2016. Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

Purpose/Outline

Web Links By Chapter?

 

Purpose, Conceptual Prototype, Chapter VI Recommendations, Part of "Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16" (Conceptual Prototype)

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 27, 2016. Purpose, Conceptual Prototype, Chapter VI Recommendations (Voter Educational Outreach Projects), Part of Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16. Conceptual Prototype. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

    1. Understanding Staffing Analysis

    2. Department Descriptions & Relationships

    3. Supplemental Web Page for JO CO JJ Department

    4. Use Of References & Links

    5. Flow Chart of Josephine County Juvenile Justice Department

    6. Citizen’s Guide To The Budget

 

Josephine County Juvenile Justice Standards: FY 2015-16 (May 9, 2016 - A Work In Progress)

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - May 9, 2016. Josephine County Juvenile Justice Standards: FY 2015-16. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2010-11

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 22, 2016. Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2010-11. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

Purpose/Outline

Web Links By Chapter?

 

IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED HOW MUCH OF THE FOLLOWING WILL REMAIN

 

Josephine County Juvenile Justice Public Safety Services

(Outline)

 

I. PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEM/ISSUE

A. Josephine County (JO CO)/City Of Grant Pass Levies/Tax Proposals

B. Study Design

        1. Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015

        2. Justice System & Public Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work (2013)

C. Juvenile Justice (JJ) News

       • 'Status quo' budget proposed for coming year, April 20, 2016

       • County Struggling to Keep Youth Suspects Locked up, October 13, 2015

       • Justice Officials Outline Fiscal Cuts, May 8, 2015

       • Local Forum Focus: Public Safety, January 21, 2015

       • More Juvenile Detention Beds Sought, Dec. 19, 2014

       • Juvenile Center to Open Doors, May 01, 2014

 

II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC & OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS

A. Potential Affected Conditions: Existing Studies & Information On Declining Federal Payments To Counties

B. Community Indicators: Social, Economic and Environmental

C. Jackson and Josephine County Community Health Assessment

D. Income Inequality: Gini Coefficient

 

III. JUVENILE JUSTICE JO CO DEPARTMENT WEB PAGE

A. Josephine County Juvenile Justice

B. Court & Field Services

C.1. Custody Services

C.2 Douglas County Juvenile Department

D. Budget

E. Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA)

F. Resource Links

 

IV. JUVENILE JUSTICE JO CO BUDGET

A. Public Safety Fund Description

B. JJ FY 2015-16 JO CO Budget

    1. Juvenile Justice Fund: Public Safety Fund (12)

    1.a) Program: Court & Field

    2. Juvenile Justice Special Programs Fund

    2.a) Program: Child Advocacy - CAMI

    2.b) Program: Mediation

    2.c) Program: Flex

C. Juvenile Justice FY 2010-11 JJ JO CO Budget

    1. Public Safety Fund (PSF): FY 2015-16

       a) Public Safety Fund (PSF) Description

       b) Juvenile Justice Court & Field Program

       c) Juvenile Justice Shelter Detention Program

    2. Juvenile Justice JO CO Special Revenue Funds (SRF) Budget (33): FY 2015-16

       a) Juvenile Justice Child Advocacy Program: FY 2015-16

       b) Juvenile Justice Mediation Program (33): 2015-16

    D. Comparison of JJ FY 2015-16 & FY 2010-11 JO CO Budgets

    1. JJ JO CO Budgets

       a) Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16

       b) Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2010-11

       c) Difference Between FY 2015-16 & FY 2010-11

    2. Differences Between FY 2010-11 AND FY 2015-16

 

V. STANDARDS & CRITERIA:  JJ ELECTIVE, NECESSARY, AND/OR MANDATED PSS

A. JJ Law (Oregon Revised Statues)

     1. ORS 419A.010-020: Juvenile Court and Field Services

     2. ORS 418.746-796: Child Abuse Multidisciplinary team (MDT)

     3. ORS 107.775: Court Mediation to Assist Families to Develop Child Custody and Parenting Plans

     4. Oregon Ballot Measure 11 (1994)

         a) Measure 11 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

         b) Oregon Ballot Measure 11 (1994)

         c) Misguided Measures

B. JJ Rules (Oregon Administrative Rules)

C. JJ Josephine County Policy/Law

D. Federal

     1. Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention

E. Other (e.g., Federal, courts, etc.)

     1. U.S. Code on Juvenile Delinquency (18.U.S.C.A. §§ 5031 et seq.)

     2. American Correctional Association

     3. Juvenile Detention Standards in Washington State

     4. Juvenile Justice Standards: For Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association

 

VI. JJ RESOURCES

A. Government

     1. Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association

     2. Oregon Youth Authority

     3. Oregon Commission on Children and Families

     4. Oregon Department of Human Services

     5. Oregon Department of Human Services

     6. Oregon Health Authority

     7. Department of Education

     8. Employment Department

     9. Oregon State Police

   10. Oregon’s 36 County Juvenile Departments

   11. Oregon Department of Corrections

B. State & Local Service Providers

C. Advocacy Groups

D. Programs

    1. Juvenilve Justice Information System

 

VII. JJ STUDIES/INVENTORIES

A. Study Design

B. Vetted Studies/Inventories

C. Further Readings

 

VIII. MALPSS

 

IX. JO CO JJ PRE-STUDY RESEARCH PROJECTS

A. Juvenile Justice Facilities/Work Units

B. Pre-Study Research Projects

 

I. PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEM/ISSUE

 

A.    JO CO/CITY OF GRANTS PASS LEVIES/TAX PROPOSALS

 

The 2012 expiration of federal SRS payments to JO CO, used mostly for public safety services, resulted in four county tax levies and one city sales tax as solutions. They all failed. However, there is a high probability for another levy to be on a future ballot. This is reasonable, as public safety services are needed, even though the form and the cost are issues.

1.   May 15, 2012 JO CO-wide Primary Election Measure 17 - 43, Criminal Justice System Operations Four Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 57 - 43 percent, Voter Turnout - Total 52.59%; 25,405 votes for Measure 17 - 43/ 49,561 registered voters = 51%.
2.  May 21, 2013 JO CO-wide Special Election Measure 17 - 49, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Three Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.48 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 51 - 49 percent, Voter Turnout - Total 51.97%; 26,331 votes for Measure - 49/ 50,944 registered voters = 52%.
3.  May 20, 2014 JO CO-wide Primary Election Measure 17 - 59, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Three Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.19 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 53 - 48 percent, Voter Turnout - Total 56.51%; 27,991 votes for Measure 17 - 59/ 50,655 registered voters = 55%.
4.  May 19, 2015 JO CO-wide Special Election Measure 17-66, For Patrol, Jail, Shelter of Abused Youth; Five Year Levy (i.e., $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 54 - 46 Percent, Voter Turnout - Total 50.65%; 25,824 votes for Measure 17 - 59/ 51,143 registered voters = 51%.
5.  November 3, 2015 Grants Pass City-wide Special Election Measure 17-67 2 Percent Sales Tax for City Public Safety and Criminal Justice Services, failed 78 - 22 Percent

 

B.    STUDY DESIGN

 

1. Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015 (Study Design)

    Web Page: http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm

 

•  Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. Draft 2015. Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

2. Justice System & Public Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work (2013; Scope of Work)

    Web Page: http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm

 

•  Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. Draft July 18, 2013. Justice System & Public Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work (Scope). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

C.    JJ NEWS

 

•  County Struggling to Keep Youth Suspects Locked up, October 13, 2015, Melissa McRobbie, The Grants Pass Daily Courier (TGPDC), Front Page News.

    According to county Juvenile Justice Director Jim Goodwin, "We're in pretty rough shape." The beds are rented, and the problem is that the need outweighs bed availability, meaning that right now, some youths

    suspected of committing serious crimes are being cited and released rather than booked into detention because there's no room for them.

 

•  Justice Officials Outline Fiscal Cuts, May 8, 2015, Jim Moore, TGPDC, Community News.

    Meanwhile, Juvenile Justice, with a budget of $1,019,700, is facing a cut of $81,000. Prior budget cuts forced the closure of the county's juvenile detention unit. Instead Director Jim Goodwin contracts with other

    counties for jail beds for  youths.

 

•  Local Forum Focus: Public Safety, January 21, 2015, Melissa McRobbie, TGPDC, Front Page News.

    The Juvenile Justice Center contains a 16-bed shelter and a 14-bed detention facility that are both sitting empty because the department can't afford to staff them. Criminal suspects under 18 are lodged at Jackson

    County's detention center,   where Josephine County rents three beds. Youths who need a shelter bed because of an unstable home situation, including abusive situations, have nowhere to go, Goodwin added.

 

•  More Juvenile Detention Beds Sought, Dec. 19, 2014, Melissa McRobbie, TGPDC, Front Page News.

 

•  Juvenile Center to Open Doors, May 01, 2014, Shaun Hall, TGPDC, Community News.

    The lights have been turned off for nearly two years in the shelter and detention area of the Josephine County Juvenile Justice Center. Opened 15 years ago at a cost of $3.1 million, the 16-bed shelter and the 14-bed

    detention center closed in June 2012, due to budget cuts.

 

•   Location: 301 N.W. F St.

•   Built: 1999

•   Cost: $3.1 million

•   Facility includes: 14-bed detention center; 16-bed shelter; Family Court courtroom/offices, Juvenile Justice administrative offices.

 

II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC & OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS

 

Studies & Information

Justice System Exploratory Committee

Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015

http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_Studies.htm

 

A. POTENTIAL AFFECTED CONDITIONS:  EXISTING STUDIES & INFORMATION ON DECLINING FEDERAL

     PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES

 

1.    2008. Federal Land Management and County Government: 1908-2008 - A Report of the "Changing Federal County Payments Policy and Rural Oregon Counties: Impacts and Options" Project

2.    2009. Economic Impacts on Oregon Counties of the Termination of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: An Update

3.    2009. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress: How do Oregon Counties Compare?

4.    2009. Changing Federal County Payments and Rural Oregon Counties: Analysis of Policy Impacts and Responses from Loss of Secure Rural School Funding in Selected Oregon Counties

5.    Economic Impacts on Oregon of the Termination of Secure Rural Schools Payments to Counties: 2011 Update

6.    2009. Governor’s Task Force On Federal Forest Payments And County Services

7.    2010. Report of the Reset SubCommittee On Pubic Safety

8.    Oregon Criminal Justice Commission

9.    Association of Oregon Counties

10.  Oregon Secretary of State

 

B. COMMUNITY INDICATORS:  SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL

 

•  Beleiciks, N., & Weber B. (2006). A Guide to Oregon Community Indicators: Social, Economic and Environmental. RSP 06-04, Rural Studies Program Working Paper Series. Corvallis, OR.

 

1. Social Indicator Sources

 

•   AllCare Health Plan; Jackson Care Connect; Primary Health. November 2013. 2013 Jackson and Josephine County Community Health Assessment. Coordinated  Care Organizations

•   Duewel, Jeff. May 17, 2015. RCC Students Explore Levy-related Sociology Concepts. The Grants Pass Daily Courier. Grants Pass, OR.

•   Oregon Center For Public Health. July 24, 2015. How Do Oregonians Rate Their [Coordinated Care Organizations] CCO? Report. Silverston, OR.

     http://www.ocpp.org/media/uploads/pdf/2015/07/rpt20150724-Oregon-CCO-quality.pdf

 

2. Economic Indicator Sources

 

•  Adams, V. March 2009. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress: How do Oregon Counties Compare? Rural Studies Program Working Paper Series. Corvallis, OR.

 

3. Environmental Indicator Sources

 

- - -

 

C. Jackson and Josephine County Community Health Assessment

 

•  AllCare Health Plan; Jackson Care Connect; Primary Health. November 2013. 2013 Jackson and Josephine County Community Health Assessment. Coordinated Care Organizations. http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_Studies.htm

 

• Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. Draft December 27, 2015. 2013 Josephine County Community Health Assessment (Public Outreach 5.7). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

• Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. Draft December 27, 2015. Summary Highlights: Summary Highlights: 2013 Josephine County Community Health Assessment (Public Outreach 5.8). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

•  Kingsland, Ruth Longoria. April 5, 2015. JoCo Still Among Unhealthiest Counties. TGPDC. Grants Pass, OR.   

 

Josephine County (JO CO) — and much of Southern Oregon — ranks near the bottom of the state for quality of health. Unless noted, the following community health assessment (CHA) information is from the 2013 Jackson and Josephine County Community Health Assessment (see Public Outreach 5.7 for more information).

 

2013 Jackson and Josephine County Community Health Assessment

 

• Location and Physical Characteristics JO CO is located in Southwestern Oregon, in a rugged part of the state with multiple climates and geography within its 1,640 square miles. The majority of residents live in over 24 unincorporated areas, creating geographic barriers to accessing medical care, services and in some communities, access to exercise facilities, grocery stores and fresh foods.

 

• Migration and Growth JO CO has experienced out migration of younger populations while seeing an influx of older populations at the same time. Both the exodus of younger and the influx of older demographic groups in the county ultimately influences the health status and burden for care on the community. According to 2012 census data, 23.6% of the county population is over 65 years old. That is nearly double the state average of 14.9%.

 

• Poverty Nearly one in three children in JO CO live in poverty, creating significant challenges to their overall health and long-term development. 18.8% of the total county population lives in poverty (2007-2011), higher than the state average of 14.8%.

 

• Homelessness continues to be a challenge for many living in JO CO. Causes of homelessness are varied, they include drug and alcohol abuse, high rents, domestic violence and unemployment.

 

• Employment Unemployment in JO CO continues to be higher than state and national averages. Although the trend shows slight decreases in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rates from the Oregon Employment Department, they continue to hover around 11.2-11.3% annually, 4% higher than the national average.

 

• Crime Crime continues to be top of mind for residents living in JO CO. The Report of Oregon Offenses known to Law Enforcement lists JO CO as 14th highest in the state for property crimes (out of 36), 14th for person crimes and 23rd for behavior crimes in 2010.

 

• County Health Rankings JO CO has one of the worst health rankings in the state, raking 29th out of 33 Oregon counties (health outcomes category), a second year in a row. Mortality (death) was also ranked 29th out of 32, morbidity (disease) was ranked slightly better at 18th out of 32.

 

• Oral and Dental Health National and state level data shows that tooth decay is five times more common than asthma in Oregon children, making dental health a priority concern for the County and State.

 

• Mental Health 67% of residents in JO CO describe themselves as having good mental health. Although that is close to the state average, it still shows that close to 1 in 3 people don’t consider themselves as having good mental health. When people don’t feel as though their mental health is good, health-related quality of life is reduced.

 

• Addictions JO CO residents have significant issues with addictions of alcohol, tobacco, other drugs and gambling.

 

• Food Insecurity The USDA defines food insecurity as lack of access to enough food for all members in a household and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. Over 17.8% of JO CO households, or approximately 14,650 people are food insecure. 78% of the food-insecure households in the county have incomes below the poverty level.

 

• Access to Medical Care Lack of health insurance coverage continues to be a significant barrier to accessing needed health and medical care. JO CO far exceeds the national benchmark of 11% and state percentages in all age groups - 29.7% of adults 19- to 64-years-old in the county were uninsured in 2011.

 

Josephine County — and much of Southern Oregon — has once again ranked near the bottom of the state for quality of health, according to the recently released 2015 County Health Rankings.

 

D. Income Inequality: Gini Coefficient

 

•  Duewel, Jeff. July 19, 2015. USA Today Says GP Has Huge Income Gap. Front Page, TGPDC. Grants Pass, OR. http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_Studies.htm

 

The Grants Pass Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (i.e., JO CO) has the third-largest gap between the haves and the have-nots in the U.S. Out of 381 MSAs in the entire U.S., only two are higher (worse) than JO CO. For example, nearly 30 percent of all income in JO CO goes to just 5 percent of area households, while the lowest-earning 20 percent of households take home just 3.2 percent of all income generated. Even though the cost of living is lower than the national level, 24.3 percent of the population still was on food stamps. The conclusion is drawn from the Gini coefficient, a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality.

 

Such a gulf is worrying in part because of the apparent correlations between a country’s level of income inequality and a host of social health and civic problems.

 

III. JJ JO CO DEPARTMENT WEB PAGE

 

JJ JO CO DEPARTMENT

Josephine County, Oregon

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=163

 

A. JOSEPHINE COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE

 

1. Juvenile Justice Facilities

 

    a) Court & Field Services Facility (1999)

 

    b) Detention Facility: 14 Beds (1999)

 

    c) Shelter Facility Beds (1999)

 

2. Schedule A - Office/Division Summary of Programs, Josephine County FY 2015 - 16 Budget

 

Total For Fund. Program Name: Court & Field

 

   FY 2014 - 15 Budget

   Full-Time Equivalent (FTE):  8.00

   Resources :  $283,000

   Requirements:  $1,100,800

   Net:  ($817,800)

 

   FY 2015 - 16 Budget

   Full-Time Equivalent (FTE):  8.60

   Resources:  $201,900

   Requirements:  $1,019,700

   Net:  ($817,800)

 

B. COURT & FIELD SERVICES

James Goodwin, Director

Josephine County Juvenile Justice

301 N.W. F Street

Grants Pass, OR 97526

541-474-5186

Fax: (541) 474-5181

Email: jgoodwin@co.josephine.or.us

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=163

 

Contact: James Goodwin

Hours: Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM

 

Josephine County Juvenile Justice provides the following services.

 

•  Intake of all Law Enforcement Referrals

      Informal Intervention

      Diversion

      Petition Filed in Juvenile Court

•  Juvenile Court Investigations

•  Risk/Need Assessments

•  Courtroom Case Presentation

•  Probation Supervision

•  Formal Accountability Agreements

•  Counseling

      Aggression Replacement Training

      Functional Family Therapy (through OPTIONS)

•  Custody Services for youth who are pending Court or serving Probation Violation Sanctions. This service is contracted through the Douglas County Juvenile Department (http://www.co.douglas.or.us/Juvenile/). For Detention Program information, call (541) 440-4409.

      Community Protection

      Accountability

 

[Exploratory Committee's observations:   Need to explain the program beyond single words or phrases meaningful to JJ professionals.]

 

C.1. CUSTODY SERVICES

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=623

 

Custody services provide shelter and detention to youth. The Shelter/Detention facility operates as a 24 hour a day program which houses both youth charged with criminal conduct and youth in need of shelter care. Intake, assessment, and custody decisions are made on all youth entering the facility and program services are provided as appropriate. Youth who are admitted to shelter receive health care, education services, treatment services and recreational opportunities. Detention, while a secure lock down facility, also provides these services in a separate section of the building. Custody services are provided through licensing with the state Department of Human Services and are within state guidelines and regulations.

 

Objectives

 

·  House and detain delinquent youth

·  Provide Shelter Services for dependant youth

·  Provide assessment and intake on youth brought to the facility by law enforcement.

·  Provide education, treatment, health care and recreational opportunities for youth in the facility

 

Shelter Detention admissions are based on law enforcement and Department of Human Services referral.

 

C.2. DOUGLAS COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

http://www.co.douglas.or.us/Juvenile/

 

D. BUDGET

 

E. COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE PROGRAM (CASA)

 

Juvenile Justice

Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA)

CASA of Josephine County

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Links.asp?SectionID=163

 

F. RESOURCE LINKS

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Links.asp?SectionID=163

 

•  ADAPT Substance Abuse Counseling http://www.adaptoregon.org/

•  Jackson County Juvenile Detention Center(http://jacksoncountyor.org/community-justice/Juvenile-Services/Overview)

•  National Gang Center http://www.iir.com/WhatWeDo/Gang_Initiatives/NGC/

•  National Inhalant Prevention Coalition http://www.inhalants.org/nipaw.htm

•  National Institute of Corrections http://nicic.gov/

•  National Institute of Justice http://www.nij.gov/Pages/welcome.aspx

•  National Institute on Drug Abuse https://www.drugabuse.gov/

•  National Mental Health Association http://www.nmha.org/

•  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention http://www.ojjdp.gov/

•  On Track Substance Abuse Counseling http://www.ontrackrecovery.org/

•  Options for Southern Oregon http://www.optionsonline.org/

•  Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association http://www.ojdda.org/

•  Oregon Partnership http://www.linesforlife.org/

•  Oregon Youth Authority http://www.oregon.gov/OYA/pages/index.aspx

•  Partnership For a Drug Free America http://www.drugfree.org/

•  Southern Oregon Adolescent Study and Treatment Center (SOASTC) http://kairosnw.org/

•  Theft Talk/Theft Education Class http://www.thefttalk.com/index.htm

 

IV. JUVENILE JUSTICE  JO CO BUDGET

 

A. PUBLIC SAFETY FUND DESCRIPTION (PSF, page 160/764)

 

The Public Safety Fund was formed in 2006. It was comprised of three departments: Sheriff, District Attorney, and Community Justice, which had previously been in the General Fund. The Community Justice Department was further reorganized into Juvenile Justice and Adult Corrections. In 2007, Adult Corrections was moved to a separate fund. The Sheriff and District Attorney are elected officials. The manager of the Juvenile Justice Department reports to a liaison County Commissioner. The departments within this fund provide support for the criminal justice system utilized by city, county and state law enforcement. County wide services include court prosecution, civil services, the jail and juvenile facility.

 

The budget is in balance, which means that the budgeted requirements (expenditures and ending fund balance) are equal to the resources (beginning fund balance and revenues) that are estimated to be available during the budget year. The primary source of revenue to operate the departments in this Fund had been monies received under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and a transfer from the General Fund. Additionally, programs operated by the three departments generate revenues for specific program purposes. The TARP "county payments" money replaced the O&C distributions that the County received for many years.

 

A summary of the Public Safety Fund (Resources and Requirements) is presented first BJosephine County, Oregon Adopted Budget FY 2015-16, followed by sections for each of the three departments. The money available for them is equal to total resources of the fund, less the requirement for Internal Service Fund charges. Major reductions in programs occurred in FY 2012-13 due to the loss of funding and five percent reductions have been occurring annually since.

 

For each department, there is a summary of its programs (Schedule A), which in turn is supported by a Program Worksheet (Schedule B) for each program. Schedule B provides information about the purpose of the program, how much revenue it is expected to generate during the budget year, and a breakdown of its expenditure budget by the categories specified in Oregon Local Budget Law.

 

Schedules C, D, and E provide details of resources, personal services and other expenditures, respectively.

 

B.  JJ FY 2015-2016 JO CO BUDGET (June 17, 2015 Josephine County, Oregon Adopted Budget: FY 2015-2016)

 

• Josephine County (JO CO) Board of County Commissioners (BCC). June 17, 2015. Josephine County, Oregon Adopted Budget FY 2015-16. JO CO BCC Resolution Number 2015-026. Grants Pass, OR.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY FUND, JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON (page numbers in this section refer to the Public Safey Fund (PSF) in the Josephine County, Oregon Adopted Budget FY 2015-16 (PSF, pages 158/764 - 223/764)

 

• PUBLIC SAFETY FUND DESCRIPTION (PSF, page 160/764)

• BUDGET – RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS

• PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND BUDGETS

• Sheriff (PSF, pages 164/764 - 199/764): n/a

   1. Sheriff-Admin Sheriff-Patrol

   2. Sheriff-Jail

   3. Sheriff-Schedule D Personnel

• District Attorney (PSF,pages 200/764 - 216/764 ): n/a

• Juvenile Justice (Adopted Budget, pps. 217/764 - 223/764 and/or Public Safety Fund (PSF) pps. 56 - 62).

   1. Juvenile Justice Fund: Public Safety (12)

   2. Juvenile Justice Special Programs Fund

   2.a) Program: Child Advocacy - CAMI

   2.b) Program: Mediation

   2.c) Program: Flex

 

Juvenile Justice FY 2015-2016 JO CO Public Safety Fund (12) Budget (p.2)

 

                                FTE      Appropriation

FY 2015-2016         8.60    $982,700

 

Juvenile Justice Court & Field Program

Resources And Requirements: PUBLIC SAFETY FUND (12) (p. 2)

Adopted by Governing Body; Budget for Next Year 2015-16: $982,700

 

a) Program Cost:

FY 2015-16 (12)

FTE (12): 8.6 (Schedule B) (p.57)

Budgeted (12): $1,019,700 (Schedule B) (p.57)

Budgeted (12): Requirements: $1,019,700; Net $817,800 (Schedule A) (p.56)

 

FY 2010-11

FTE: 8.0 (Schedule B)

Budgeted: $817,800 (Schedule B)

Budgeted: Requirements: $817,800; Net $817,800 (Schedule A)

 

1. Juvenile Justice Fund: Public Safety Fund (12) (Adopted Budget, pps. 217/764 - 223/764 and/or Public Safety Fund (PSF) pps. 56 - 62).

 

1.a) Program: Court & Field (Adopted Budget, pages 218/764 - 223/764 and/or PSF pps. 56 - 62).

 

FY 2015-16 (12) (PSF pps. 56 - 62)

   FTE (12): 8.6 (Schedule B) (p. 57)

   Budgeted (12): $1,019,700 (Schedule B) (p. 57)

   Budgeted (12): Requirements: $1,019,700; Net: $817,800 (Schedule A) (p. 56)

 

Fund: Public Safety Fund (12) (p. 57)

Office/Division: Juvenile Justice

Program: Court & Field

Cost Center #: 2430

 

1. Juvenile Justice Fund: Public Safety (12) (PSF, pages 217/764 - 223/764) 

 

Purpose of Program: Juvenile Court and Field Services are mandated in ORS 419A.010-020. Felony youth referrals are received from law enforcement, evaluated by the District Attorney's Office for legal sufficiency and the course of disposition is prescribed by Juvenile Justice. Misdemeanor referrals are evaluated by Juvenile Justice. The program promotes community protection through accountability for youth, opportunity for reformation and justice for victims. The course of action is driven by severity of offense and risk assessment with most services being directed to the medium to high risk offender. Lower risk, first time offenders are usually diverted from court with informal action which includes Community Service and restitution to victims when appropriate (PSF, page 218/764).

 

Outcomes include mandates that youth abide by their informal contracts or court ordered probation conditions. Victim restitution is collected or docketed as civil judgment in most cases. Caseload contacts are maintained according to the youth's level of risk and the severity of the crime. Youth violations result in a structured sanction process. The supervision of medium and high risk youth may include a mandate to attend Aggression Replacement Training and/or Functional Family Therapy (FFT), each are evidence-based programs. A budget goal of community outreach is accomplished in the geographical assignment of caseloads (PSF, page 219/764).

 

In compliance with law, schools are advised of youth pending court and final dispositions. Juvenile participates in quarterly meetings of law enforcement, schools and treatment providers.  Options, Department of Human Services and Oregon Youth Authority consult with the program regarding out-of-home placements. Functional Family Therapy is partially funded by the Division and accepts family referrals from throughout the community. Funding revenue from the state, office rent and fees account for 20% of the budget. The balance is required from County public safety funds. The department maintains training standards and accredidation through the Oregon Juvenile Department Director's Association (OJDDA; PSF, page 219/764).

 

2. Juvenile Justice Special Programs Fund (33) (PSF, pages 442/764 - 456/764)

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

 

2.a) Program: Child Advocacy - CAMI (PSF, pages 447/764 - 449/764)

       Fund: Juvenile Justice Special Programs (33)

       Office/Division: Juvenile Justice

       Cost Center #: 2420

 

FTE (33): 0.60 (Schedules A & B) (pps. 96 & 100)

Budgeted (33): $55,100 (Schedule B) (p. 100)

Budgeted: Requirements (33): $55,100; Net - (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

Purpose of Program The Child Abuse Multidisciplinary team (MDT) is mandated under ORS 418.746-796. A non-competitive grant is offered counties to maintain a team to evaluate all cases of child abuse, neglect and fatality. Juvenile Justice oversees the Child Advocate (.6 FTE) who schedules and records all MDT staffings, conducts forensic interviews, maintains video evidence and coordinates the legal and treatment process for child victims.

 

Program objectives include providing a coordinated MDT approach to child abuse investigations, maintaining a trained team including the DA, law enforcement, Juvenile, Public Health, Mental Health, DHS, child treatment agencies and schools. Outcomes include advocating for all victims in legally substantiated cases and obtaining an 80% conviction rate when offender is charged with crimes against children.

 

2.b) Program: Mediation (PSF, pages 450/764 - 452/764)

       Fund: Juvenile Justice Special Programs (33)

       Office/Division: Juvenile Justice

       Cost Center #: 2440

 

FTE (33): 1.0 (Schedules A & B) (pps. 96 & 103)

Budgeted (33): $107,900 (Schedule B) (p. 103)

Budgeted (33): Requirements: $107,900; Net - (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

Purpose of Program: ORS 107.775 mandates Court Mediation to assist families to develop child custody and parenting plans. The Mediator does not make recommendations to the court but, will work with parents to identify a mutually acceptable plan. The program leads to decreased court time and reduces future trauma to children. Parents are more likely to comply with their own mediated agreements. As an outcome, Court Mediation is to result in 100% of the applicable families having access to the program. A weekly orientation is afforded prior to mediation for all parents who have a parenting conflict.

 

2.c) Program: Flex (PSF, pages 453/764 - 456/764)

       Fund: Juvenile Justice Special Programs (33)

       Office/Division: Juvenile Justice

       Cost Center #: 2450

 

FTE (33): 0.0 (Schedules A & B) (pps. 96 & 106)

Budgeted (33): $18,000 (Schedule B) (p. 106)

Budgeted (33): Requirements: $18,000; Net: - (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

Purpose of Program: Juvenile Flex Funds are provided by Oregon Youth Authority and utilized for the purchase of treatment services and other barrier removal items for youth committed to OYA as well as youth under the supervision of Josephine County. This program is totally self-supporting.

 

C. Juvenile Justice FY 2010-11 JJ JO CO Budget

 

• JO CO Board of County Commissioners. 2010. Public Safety Fund Adopted Budget FY 2010 - 11. Grants Pass, OR.

 

Juvenile Justice Public Safety Fund

                            FTE Appropriation

FY 2015-2016    8.60 $817,800

 

Juvenile Justice Special Revenue Funds

                            FTE Appropriation

FY 2015-16    1.6 $181,000

 

                Total    10.2 $998,800

 

1. Public Safety Fund (PSF): FY 2015-16

 

a) Public Safety Fund (PSF) Description

 

Program Cost: n/a. None was provided as the PSF description is a summary of the JJ programs described latter.

 

b) Juvenile Justice Court & Field Program

Resources And Requirements: PUBLIC SAFETY FUND (12) (p. 2)

Adopted by Governing Body; Budget for Next Year 2015-16: $982,700

 

Program Cost:

FY 2015-16 (12)

   FTE (12): 8.6 (Schedule B) (p.57)

   Budgeted (12): $1,019,700 (Schedule B) (p.57)

   Budgeted (12): Requirements: $1,019,700; Net $817,800 (Schedule A) (p.56)

 

FY 2010-11

   FTE: 8.0 (Schedule B)

   Budgeted: $817,800 (Schedule B)

   Budgeted: Requirements: $817,800; Net $817,800 (Schedule A)

 

c) Juvenile Justice Shelter Detention Program n/a (no JJ Shelter Detention Program identified in FY 2015-16 budget)

 

Program Cost:

FY 2015-16

   FTE: 0.0 (Schedule B)

   Budgeted: $0.0 (Schedule B)

   Budgeted: Requirements: 0.0 (Schedule A)

 

Three (3) youth detention beds rented from Douglas County, but cannot track the FTE and budget for this JJ service.

 

FY 2010-11

   FTE: 23.7 (Schedule B)

   Budgeted: $1,674,600 (Schedule B)

   Budgeted: Requirements: $1,674,600; Net $1,674,600 (Schedule A)

 

   14 youth detention beds in Grants Pass

   16 youth shelter beds in Grants Pass.

 

 2. Juvenile Justice JO CO Special Revenue Funds (SRF) Budget (33): FY 2015-16 (p. 95)

 

                            FTE Appropriation

FY 2015-16    1.6 $181,000

 

Juvenile Justice Special Programs Fund (33)

Resources & Requirements: JUVENILE JUSTICE SPECIAL PROGRAMS FUND (33) (p. 95)

Adopted by Governing Body; Budget for Next Year 2015-16: $181,000

 

Program Cost:

 

FY 2015-16 (33)

   FTE (33): 1.6 (Schedules B) (p. 97)

   Budgeted (33): $181,000 (Schedule B) (p. 97)

   Budgeted (33): Requirements: $181,000; Net: $181,000 (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

FY 2010-11 (246)

   FTE (246): 2.85 (Schedule A) (p. H50)

   Budgeted (246): Requirements: $275,600 (Schedule A) (p. H50)

   Budgeted (246): Requirements: $275,600 (p. H49)

 

a) Juvenile Justice Child Advocacy Program: FY 2015-16

 

Program Cost:

   FTE (33): 0.60 (Schedules A & B) (pps. 96 & 100)

   Budgeted (33): $55,100 (Schedule B) (p. 100)

   Budgeted: Requirements (33): $55,100; Net - (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

b) Juvenile Justice Mediation Program (33): 2015-16

 

Program Cost:

    FTE (33): 1.0 (Schedules A & B) (pps. 96 & 103)

   Budgeted (33): $107,900 (Schedule B) (p. 103)

   Budgeted (33): Requirements: $107,900; Net - (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

c) Juvenile Justice Flex Program (33): FY 2015-16

 

Program Cost:

   FTE (33): 0.0 (Schedules A & B) (pps. 96 & 106)

   Budgeted (33): $18,000 (Schedule B) (p. 106)

   Budgeted (33): Requirements: $18,000; Net: - (Schedule A) (p. 96)

 

D. Comparison of JJ FY 2015-16 & FY 2010-11 JO CO Budgets

 

1. JJ JO CO Budgets

 

a) Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 27, 2016. Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

FTE Appropriation

FY 2015-16 8.60 $ 982,700

 

b) Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2010-11

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 22, 2016. Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2010-11. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

                             FTE Appropriation

FY 2010-11          33.70 $2,524,600

 

c) Difference Between FY 2015-16 & FY 2010-11

 

Difference             25.10 $1,541,900

 

2. Differences Between FY 2010-11 AND FY 2015-16

 

• Do the reviewers understand the JO CO JJ Department?

• Do they know the value/significance of the department beyond their own private opinions?

• Would they be confident in explaining the JJ programs to their neighbors?

• Do they feel it should be reestablished at its level of service and funding prior to FY 2012-13?

 

The following are the differences observed by the Reviewers between the two JJ budgets based on the text and content of their six text sections (Section VII.F, Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16).

 

• Whalen, Jon & Walker, Mike, Members, JS&PSS Exploratory Committee. First Draft - April 27, 2016. Understanding The Juvenile Justice Josephine County Budget: FY 2015-16. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.

 

Budgets Compared For FY 2010-11 & FY 2015-16 The annual JO CO JJ budget documents do not change much in terms of their six text sections. However, the adopted FY 2010-11 and FY 2015-16 budgets for the JO CO JJ Department have a big difference of 24.35 FTE and $1,402,400. Based on the budget documents, "Does the public understand the differences, if any, to the community?"

The Committee found that without the JJ Shelter-Detention programs’ FY 2010-11 budget (i.e.,$1,674,600) there was a significant decrease (64%) in the budget dollars in the JO CO Juvenile Justice Department. At the same time there was an increase (25%) in the JJ Court & Field budget for a total department decrease of 38%. The FTE and cost of renting three detention beds from Douglas County was not found in the FY 2015-16 budget.

 

There did not seem to be an obvious policy for the six text sections’ text lengths (i.e., number of words). The Committee speculates that the lengths were somehow a function of the standards of the budget process.

What was missing in the two budget documents, in the opinion of the Committee, was a serious consideration that since the 2000 Secure Rural Schools Act, Congress had repeatedly sent messages that federal payments would be phased out, and this was intended to give counties time to plan for the change (Chapter III). However, in the opinion of the Reviewers, it did not seem that any planning was occurring, except to develop an annual budget that was balanced. The text did not significantly change when comparing the FY 2010-11 and FY 2015-16 JJ budgets, even after the FY 2012-13 cuts, except to show the major cut to JJ detention and shelter.

The Committee had expected to find major text differences between the FY 2010-11 and FY 2015-16 JJ budgets. For example, it could have easily understood the amount of text proportional to the degree and magnitude of a loss of federal payments to JO CO (i.e., the greater probability of loss results in a more comprehensive text educational effort to secure funding). Or, perhaps the detail in the text length would correspond to the size of the proposed program in FTE or budget. That did not happen.

 

The Exploratory Committee’s determination was that in general the text "context" provided was adequate to minimally adequate, except the obvious lack of planning outside of the budget process.

In the opinion of the Reviewers there were program descriptions to meet budget standards. However, there was a minimal identification of standards, including ORS, OARs, JO CO ordinances, with much work needed (i.e., not sure that all ORS identified; no OARs or JO CO ordinances identified). In some cases there was not an adequate identification of standards. The Resources and Requirements were identified (If the Reviewers understood these terms, especially how "Requirements" was being used?). A three year change was identified, but the Committee felt that a change from FY 2012-13 was also needed as the baseline prior to major reductions in the budget.

 

Of significance, in the opinion of the Reviewers, the two budget documents reviewed were professionally written and consistent with budget document standards. They provided the much needed accountability of a balanced budget.

 

"Understanding" the JO CO JJ Programs through their text descriptions was the major problem for the Reviewers. Understanding by the reviewers, Whalen and Walker, was a subjective evaluation of how comfortable they were in understanding the JO CO JJ Department. Could the reviewers explain the JO CO JJ Department a few days later without notes? The reviewers understanding for six categories follows.

 

1. Need - Budget Requirements. Reviewers noted a need was identified as an FTE and budget with a text description of the program.

2. Value - Significance. Reviewers do not understand the value/significance of the JJ program in a scientific versus "feeling’ point of view (i.e., what actually will be lost or gained beyond identification of FTE and budget?).

3. Change Reviewers do not understand changes in the JJ Program.

4. Sources - References/Vetted. Adequate References were not provided in order for the Reviewers to gain an understanding. Adequate is the key as the Reviewers spent significant time and effort researching, studing, and following references provided without feeling that they understood the JJ program.

5. Web Links Adequate Web Links were not provided in order for Reviewers to gain an understanding. Many web links were found relating to the "Review Questions" identified in Chapter IV. They provided a general description and understanding of topics, but were not adequate in identifying how they were specifically applicable to the JO CO JJ Department. Adequate is the key (see #4 above).

6. Understand - Overall Understanding The reviewers would not be confident in explaining the JJ programs to their neighbors.

 

In general, the sought after understanding by the Reviewers in over 60 hours of research and study did not materialize. They would not be confident in explaining the JJ programs to their neighbors.

 

V. STANDARDS & CRITERIA:  JJ ELECTIVE, NECESSARY, AND/OR MANDATED PSS

 

A.  JJ LAW (Oregon Revised Statues)

 

The following three sets of ORS are identified as responsibilities of the JO CO Juvenile Justice Department in its FY 2015-16 budget.

 

   •    ORS 419A.010-020: Juvenile Court and Field Services

   •    ORS 418.746-796: Child Abuse Multidisciplinary team (MDT)

   •    ORS 107.775: Court Mediation to Assist Families to Develop Child Custody and Parenting Plans

 

•  Josephine County (JO CO) Board of County Commissioners (BCC). June 17, 2015. Josephine County, Oregon Adopted Budget FY 2015-16. JO CO BCC Resolution Number 2015-026. Grants Pass, OR.

 

1. ORS 419A.010-020: Juvenile Court and Field Services  Internet research did not locate ORS 419A. What was found was Chapter 419B.

Chapter 419B - Juvenile Code: Dependency (2015 EDITION) https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors419B.html   If ORS 419B is accurate, then ORS 419B.010-020 would include the following.

 

ORS 419B.010.    Duty of officials to report child abuse; exceptions; penalty

ORS 419B.015.    Report form and content; notice

ORS 419B.016.    Offense of false report of child abuse

ORS 419B.017.    Time limits for notification between law enforcement agencies and Department of Human Services; rules

ORS 419B.020.    Duty of department or law enforcement agency receiving report; investigation; notice to parents; physical examination; child’s consent; notice at conclusion of investigation

 

2. ORS 418.746-796: Child Abuse Multidisciplinary team (MDT)  ORS 418 was found, along with ORS 418.746 - 796 under two broad categories.

 

   •     Investigation of Child Abuse, Rape and Suicide

   •     Regional Assessment Centers and Community Assessment Services

 

ORS 418 — Child Welfare Services (2015 EDITION)

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors418.html

 

a) Investigation of Child Abuse, Rape and Suicide

 

ORS 418.746.   Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention Account; uses; eligibility determination; plans; rules

ORS 418.747.   County teams for investigation; duties; training; method of investigation; designated medical professional

ORS 418.748.  Statewide team on child abuse and suicide

ORS 418.751.   Training and education for persons investigating child abuse

 

b) Regional Assessment Centers and Community Assessment Services

 

ORS 418.780.  Purpose

ORS 418.782.  Definitions for ORS 418.746 to 418.796

ORS 418.783.  Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention Program

ORS 418.784.   Advisory Council on Child Abuse Assessment; membership; officers; meetings; quorum

ORS 418.785.   Child Fatality Review Teams

ORS 418.786.  Grant program

ORS 418.788.  Grant application; criteria for awarding grants; rules

ORS 418.790.   Application contents for regional centers; rules

ORS 418.792.   Application contents for community assessment center

ORS 418.793.  Report to Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention Program; rules

ORS 418.794.   Confidentiality of video recordings

ORS 418.795.   Confidentiality of information and records

ORS 418.796.   Authority of council to solicit and accept contributions

 

3. ORS 107.775:  Court Mediation to Assist Families to Develop Child Custody and Parenting Plans Research found ORS 107.775.

 

B.  JJ RULES (Oregon Administrative Rules)

 

C. JJ JOSEPHINE COUNTY POLICY/LAW

 

D. FEDERAL

 

1. Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention

 

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994 - 1996

•  Bilchik, Shay; Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. October 1997. Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994 - 1996. National Criminal Justice Association. Washington, DC.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW

Washington, DC 20531

 

Oregon: Making Juvenile Offenders Accountable

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994 - 1996

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch3_e.html

 

E. OTHER (e.g., Federal, courts, etc.)

 

1. U.S. Code on Juvenile Delinquency (18.U.S.C.A. §§ 5031 et seq.)

18 U.S. Code Chapter 403 - JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Legal Information Institute

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-IV/chapter-403

Downloaded April 12, 2016

 

§ 5031 - Definitions

§ 5032 - Delinquency proceedings in district courts; transfer for criminal prosecution

§ 5033 - Custody prior to appearance before magistrate judge

§ 5034 - Duties of magistrate judge

§ 5035 - Detention prior to disposition

§ 5036 - Speedy trial

§ 5037 - Dispositional hearing

§ 5038 - Use of juvenile records

§ 5039 - Commitment

§ 5040 - Support

§ 5041 - Repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §?214(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2014]

§ 5042 - Revocation of probation

 

2. American Correctional Association

http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Standards___Accreditation/Standards/ACA_Member/Standards_and_Accreditation/StandardsInfo_Home.aspx?hkey=7c1b31e5-95cf-4bde-b400-8b5bb32a2bad

 

Standards Since 1954, the American Correctional Association has published operational standards designed to enhance correctional practices for the benefit inmates, staff, administrators, and the public. In the decades since the Manual on Correctional Standards- First Edition was created, the Association has diversified and expended its standards and today publishes 22 different manuals for all areas of the field of corrections. This includes dedicated manuals for the operation of differing facility types, including prisons, jails, juvenile correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, probation/parole agencies, halfway houses, and others. Similarly, ACA publishes standards for correctional programs that impact multiple facilities such as correctional industries (manufacturing programs), food service, electronic monitoring, therapeutic communities, and central office administration. Recently, the Association added new International Core Standards, designed to implement basic correctional practice on the international level.

 

Across the United States and the world, the ACA standards have been integrated into routine operations in more than 1,300 facilities and agencies. Tens of thousands of staff and inmates are impacted by the ACA standards on a daily basis. For more information on the creation and monitoring of the ACA standards; individual standards manuals; updates and interpretations from the ACA staff; or to purchase the ACA standards, explore the links on this page.

 

What are ACA's Standards? Since their inception, the ACA standards have served to establish a fundamental operational structure for facilities and agencies that have implemented them. ACA standards interface with all aspects of operations, including safety, security, order, care, programs, justice, and administration, among others. While ACA standards provide guidelines for these areas and require the existence of some specific practices or conditions, they are designed to facilitate the development of independent agency policy and procedure that govern the agency’s everyday operations. Since the mid-2000s, ACA standards have gradually migrated to a "performance-based" model in which agencies collect, track, and analyze internal outcomes related to each standard in order to gage their performance and adjust their operations accordingly. This model has proven to be a successful method of improving agency operations through the use of real-time data with an immediate and significant impact on inmates, staff, and administrators throughout the facility or agency.

 

ACA standards guide operations in every area of the facility of agency. Secure facilities such as jails and prisons must operate effectively as self-contained communities in which all necessary goods and services are provided in a safe, secure, and controlled manner. ACA standards relating to safety require adherence to all federal, state, and local fire and safety codes; emergency planning and preparation; and the provision of related training and materials for staff and inmates. Security standards mandate inspections and training of all firearms and armed officers; visitor and staff searches and tracking procedures; and inmate counting and tracking procedures. Other sections throughout each manual regulate policy, procedure, and practice at a similar level for other institutional or facility activities.

 

ACA standards are divided into two categories: mandatory and non-mandatory standards. In order to be accredited, facilities must meet the requirements for all applicable mandatory standards and 90% of applicable non-mandatory standards. Due to differences in mission, physical plant, and jurisdictional intricacies, not all standards may apply to a given facility. Those standards deemed to be non-applicable to a particular facility are deducted from the calculation of the facility’s compliance score. Similarly, some standards (especially those regulating physical size and/or space limitations) are deemed applicable only to facilities built after a certain date in order to allow facilities sufficient time to design new facilities around ACA requirements.

 

For more information on the ACA standards, explore the other parts of this section. These include the Manuals and Supplements section, which lists each of the 22 manuals published by the Association. It also includes the Updates and Interpretations section in which ACA staff posts specific changes to the standards that are important for both facilities and ACA auditors.

 

Please note that the ACA standards are not available online and must be purchased in a print version.

 

Juvenile Justice Manuals & Supplements

   Juvenile Community Residential Facilities, 3rd Edition (JCRF)

   Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 4th Edition (JCF)

   Juvenile Detention Facilities, 3rd Edition (JDF)

   Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp Programs, 1st Edition (JBC)

   Juvenile Day Treatment Programs, 1st Edition (JDTP)

 

How the Courts View ACA Accreditation (see Exploratory Committee’s web page on Courts, II. INTERPRETATIONS at http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/courts1.htm).

 

3. Juvenile Detention Standards in Washington State

 

• Collins, William C. December 1998. Juvenile Detention Standards in Washington State. Christopher Murray & Associates, M. M. Bell, Inc.

 

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy contracted with Christopher Murray & Associates to assist in the review and analysis. Christopher Murray and Merlyn Bell, of M. M. Bell, Inc., visited all detention facilities, completed the analysis, and wrote this report.

 

Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6445, Chapter 269, Laws of 1998 required the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to address six tasks regarding standards for

juvenile detention facilities. These six tasks were:

 

• What standards are in place and proposed for all existing and planned detention facilities in this state?

• What is the current compliance of detention facilities with recommended American Correctional Association standards and those delineated in RCW 13.06.050?

• What concerns, problems, or issues regarding current standards have a direct impact on the safety and health of offenders, staff, and the community?

• Identify and make recommendations with regard to the improvements needed, including a timeline for the implementation of such improvements.

• Recommend a schedule for periodic review of juvenile detention standards.

• Analyze the costs to implement the recommendations in accordance with the recommended timeline.

 

No Uniform Juvenile Detention Standards Operate in Washington State  While there have been attempts to develop and implement juvenile detention standards in Washington State since the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1977, there are no uniform standards in the state today. RCW 13.06.050 directs local jurisdictions that receive state juvenile justice funds to have standards in place, but non-compliance has been without consequence. In the absence of clear and up-to-date state standards, some of the juvenile court administrators who want to assess how well their facility and staff measure up have turned to the standards issued by the American Correctional Association (ACA). Other administrators still look to Washington standards proposed in 1987 or to a combination of ACA and the proposed Washington State standards. Among the juvenile court administrators and detention managers, however, there is little or no support for state mandated detention standards at this time.

 

The National Context In the 1970s and 1980s, professionals in the field were increasingly concerned with the less than adequate, and even dangerous, conditions in prisons, jails, training schools, and juvenile detention facilities in many states. The courts were often actively involved. For example, inmate-on-inmate assault cases resulted in case law on separation and classification of violent from non-violent inmates. Courts required that juveniles be given medical screening, regular sick call, and other types of medical and mental health care. The courts were especially concerned with access to education for juvenile detainees. Facilities were required to remedy environmental conditions in dirty and overcrowded physical plants.

 

In the late 1970s, various national bodies were advocating and developing standards for the operation of juvenile facilities. These discussions generally included explicit assumptions about accreditation or monitoring for compliance with standards. Foremost among these groups were the American Bar Association, the American Correctional Association (ACA), and the National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP). The National Advisory Committee of NIJJDP completed its standards in 1980. The ACA issued theirs in 1979. A second edition of juvenile detention standards was published by the ACA in 1983, and a third in 1991. Most recently, ACA issued a supplement to its juvenile detention standards in 1998. New editions and supplements generally respond to changes in case law.

 

•   American Correctional Association (ACA)

•   National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP)

 

WASHINGTON STATE COMPLIANCE WITH ACA STANDARDS IN 1998

 

     Methodology

     Overall Levels of Compliance

     Compliance With Facility Issues

     Compliance With Juvenile Housing Standards

     Compliance With Space Standards

     Compliance With Capacity and Crowding Standards

     Compliance With Staffing Standards

     Compliance With Training Standards

     Compliance With Parity Standards

     Compliance With Health Care Standards

     Compliance With Other Mandatory Standards

     Other Areas of Concern

 

 4. Juvenile Justice Standards: For Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association

 

       •  Flicker, Barbara. 1982. Juvenile Justice Standards Project, 2^nd Edition, 326 pages. For Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association. Ballinger Publishing Company. Cambridge, MA.

 

This document was prepared for the Juvenile Justice Standards Project of the Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association. The project is supported by grants from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the American Bar Endowment, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Vincent Astor Foundation, and the Herman Goldman Foundation. The views expressed in this draft do not represent positions taken by the sponsoring organizations or the funding sources. Votes on the standards were unanimous in most but not all cases. Serious objections have been noted in formal dissents printed in the volumes concerned.

 

PART I: NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE

 

1.1 Special Nature of Juvenile Justice.  The size and complexity of the task undertaken by the Juvenile Justice Standards Project of the Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association and the IJA-ABA Joint Commission of Juvenile Justice Standards must be understood at the outset of this volume. The formulation of standards to govern the juvenile justice system goes far beyond criminal jurisprudence. Juvenile offenders are only a portion of the population within the juvenile justice system. Neglected, abused, and dependent children, as well as their parents and other affected persons, also come within the jurisdiction of juvenile or family court. But even those parties and proceedings do not cover the full spectrum of juvenile issues. The mere fact of minority and its attendant disabilities and special circumstances present problems unique to a system for the provision of justice for juveniles. These standards attempt to cover every aspect of the laws regulating children in their contact with social institutions.

 

When we consider that age and dependency, conditions beyond the control of the principal party involved, can precipitate involvement in the juvenile justice system, whereas the commission of an unlawful act is the sole determinant in initiating contact with the criminal justice system, we begin to recognize major differences between the two justice systems. Nevertheless, each is a system of justice for which standards should be promulgated, compelling a commitment to shared principles of justice and administrative coherence. The standards for criminal and juvenile justice alike must provide procedures for all the agencies and individuals functioning as parts of the organizational whole to arrive at a fair disposition of them matters brought before them.  Police, probation, courts, and corrections agencies must mesh into the criminal justice system. And the roles of the actors--defendants, victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, probation workers, judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and administrators-must be defined with precision.

 

 1.2 Reasons for Formulating National Standards.   The juvenile justice system stands in dire need of thorough dissection preparatory to the promulgation of a comprehensive set of standards. Standards generally are adopted for the following purposes:

 

1. to achieve uniformity in the law for greater fairness, efficiency, and predictability in the consequences of the same conduct, action, or behavior, regardless of jurisdiction;

2. to develop linkages within the system by: defining the roles of affected individuals and agencies; eliminating gaps and duplication in services; and coordinating the planning, operation, and monitoring of programs;

3. to reexamine accepted concepts and premises underlying the current laws in the light of objective findings derived from recent studies and other developments. Basic principles should be reaffirmed, revised, or replaced, as a result of taking a fresh look at the system;

4. to codify the relevant case law, administrative decisions, selected statutory innovations, and fundamental principles approved in the standards in a form readily translatable into a model act or acts. With respect to the juvenile justice standards, the Commission deliberately sought to attain those goals. It voted to apply the standards to federal and local laws as well as to state laws.

 

VI. JJ RESOURCES

 

A. GOVERNMENT

 

1. Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association.

http://www.ojdda.org/

 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/OJDDA is proud of its accomplishments over the 1990s and into the new century, in conjunction with the Oregon Youth Authority and other partners:

 

•   PUBLIC POLICY - 1994 Juvenile Justice Summit Recommendations

Creation of the Oregon Youth Authority

Construction of youth correctional facilities

Legislation on fingerprinting and photographing

Expansion of local detention resources

 

•   TRAINING

Fundamental, intermediate, and advanced training to staff across the state

Annual conference featuring state of the art training

 

•   JUVENILE JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM (JJIS)

Counties and the Oregon Youth Authority participate in state of the art integrated information system

Reports provide vital data on a statewide and county level

 

•   JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

Development of the Oregon Juvenile Crime Prevention Partnership under OJDDA leadership guided by research on "what works"

Promotion of effective evidence-based interventions with high risk youth

JCP Risk Screen and Assessment

Development of a validated statewide risk screen and training for users across the state - the screen identifies youth risk and strengths as a prelude to effective case management

 

•   EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICES

Promotion of evidence based practices through an annual conference featuring national experts and translation of research findings into policies, practices, and positive results

 

•   LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY

Introduction and promotion of concepts that affected legislation and improved results

 

•   RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Policy statement on system accountability

Adoption of common definition of recidivism and related offense severity scores

Creation of the JCP Risk Screen

Development of JJIS, reporting on data, and policy-based research

 

•   OPERATIONS AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

Improved operational efficiency through a Mutual Aid Agreement among counties

Discretionary Bed Allocation Formula

Detention Guidelines

Shelter Services Partnership

 

•   PARTNERSHIPS AND NETWORKING

Partnership as the key to success - collaboration with the Oregon Youth Authority, the Oregon Commission on Children and Families, the Department of Human Services, other state agencies, state and local service providers, and advocacy groups.

 

1.b. About Us

Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association

http://www.ojdda.org/aboutus.html

 

•   Bylaws

•   Contact Us

•   County Web Links

•   OJDDA Operating Principles

•   OYA OJDDA Shared Leadership Principles

•   OJDDA Vision

•   Policies

 

1.c. Policies

Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association

http://www.ojdda.org/aboutus_policies.html

 

•   Drug Policy

•   Native American Delinquency Notice

•   Close Custody Allocation

•   Definitions: Prevention/Basic Services

•   Mutual Aid Compact

•   Juvenile Justice System Accountability

•   OJDDA Webmaster Policy

 

Definitions: Prevention/Basic Services   Prevention: High risk juvenile crime prevention services delivered to youth who fit the juvenile crime prevention target population, regardless of legal status, and which have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing risk factors and preventing initial or continuing delinquent behavior among high risk youth.

Basic Services: Basic services are juvenile department services delivered to any youth referred for an offense with the goal of reducing recidivism and not to exceed the OYA discretionary bed allocation by providing a core continuum of services including detention, shelter care, graduated sanctions, aftercare for youth offenders, treatment services not otherwise identified in the high risk plan, and other juvenile department services.

 

Juvenile Justice System Accountability Statement of Principles: The Oregon Juvenile Department Directors’ Association (OJDDA) supports the principle of system accountability. County juvenile departments are committed to providing effective and efficient services to promote public safety and prevent youth from returning to criminal behavior. In partnership with the Oregon Youth Authority, the Court, private providers, and other key organizations, juvenile departments share responsibility for the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. OJDDA also supports consistent, comparable information to review programs and performance, and endorses compliance with audit requirements in ORS 419C.001.

 

JCP - Juvenile Crime Prevention, (JCP Risk Assessment Tool)

 

1.d. JCP - Juvenile Crime Prevention, (JCP Risk Assessment Tool)

Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association

http://www.ojdda.org/risk_index.htm#JCP

 

Instructions for JCP Risk Assessment 2006.1 (pdf) rev 1/14

Oregon's JCP Risk Assessment 2006.1 includes an Initial Assessment, a Reassessment, and a Reassessment for Youth in JCP Prevention Program. The JCP Assessment 2006.1 was most recently updated in October 2010. For much more information, See the web site: Juvenile Crime Prevention, (JCP Risk Assessment Tool).

 

JJIS and JCP Risk Assessment History  Oregon’s Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS): A collaborative initiative of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA), the 36 county juvenile departments, and other juvenile justice and public safety partners. Recognized as a national model, JJIS promises "one youth, one record." It offers a single source of information about a youth’s contacts and confidential case records with the state’s juvenile justice system, regardless of where in Oregon those contacts occurred. This includes contacts with local jurisdictions as well as with Oregon Youth Authority.

This integrated, statewide electronic information system was developed in the 1990s to support positive outcomes for youth offenders, 80 percent of whom are handled by county juvenile departments. JJIS replaced multiple information systems that had been managed by separate agencies, which had prevented Oregon jurisdictions from tracking offenders across agency lines or evaluating the effectiveness of various juvenile justice services.

 

Administered by OYA, JJIS eliminated duplicate data entry among agencies and established a statewide standard for recording juvenile corrections information by its nearly 4,000 users. Of these users, approximately 1,300 work with youth through OYA and county juvenile departments. The others are approved external partners – such as law enforcement and adult corrections agencies – which have limited access.

 

Senate Bill 1 -1995

Steering Committee Formed – 1997

Counties signing IGA’s – 1997

JJIS Pilot sites – 1997-1998

JJIS Release 2.0 - 1999

All counties using JJIS by 2000

 

JCP Risk Assessment: An interdisciplinary work group with members from juvenile justice, education, research, academia, and youth treatment services came together starting in 1997 to plan for and design an assessment too to identify youth at risk for re-referral. The first version of the tool was released in late 1999. The first validation of the tool occurred in 2001 with subsequent revisions implemented in 2002. A second validation occurred in 2005 with subsequent revisions implemented in 2006. The 2006 version of the tool underwent additional revisions in 2008 and again in 2010. The most recent validation (2011) tests previously unscored items, utilizes some different analytical techniques, and analyses the characteristics of the re-assessment component of the tool.

 

JCP Risk Assessment revision 2006.1 released 2006

JCP Risk Assessment Implemented in JJIS 2001

JCP Risk Assessment validated 2001, 2002, 2008, 2010, 2011

JCP Risk Assessment Automated in JJIS 2006

 

2. Oregon Youth Authority

http://www.oregon.gov/oya/pages/index.aspx

 

OYA's charge is to protect the public and reduce crime by holding youth offenders accountable for their behavior.

 

We continue to improve our treatment, education, and job training services to provide youth with the opportunity to learn personal responsibility and develop the skills and behaviors they need to make positive choices for themselves.

 

OYA is a national leader in using evidence-based, effective treatment practices to prevent youth offenders from committing additional crimes and to teach them pro-social behaviors.

 

Our goal is to help youth offenders lead crime-free lives and become productive members of their communities.

 

a) Issue Briefs: 2013-2015

 

• Assessing youth's treatment and reformation needs?

• Contracting for services to youth throughout Oregon

• Creating a culture of positive human development

• Delivering services to youth while managing costs

• Education services for youth in OYA close custody

• Feeder System Project - Intervening to prevent criminal justice involvement

• Foster care services for OYA youth

• Health care services for youth in OYA close custody

• How youth move through the juvenile justice system

• Keeping youth safe - The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)

• Legislatively Adopted Budget for 2013-15

• Mental health services for youth in OYA close custody?

• Multicultural services for youth in OYA close custody

• Nutrition services for youth in OYA close custody

• Oregon Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS)

• OYA Performance Management System (OPMS)

• OYA Youth Reformation System (YRS)

• Treatment services for youth in OYA close custody

• Using predictive analytics to improve youth outcomes?

• Volunteering to help youth succeed

 

3. Oregon Commission on Children and Families

 

4. Oregon Department of Human Services

 

5. Oregon Department of Human Services

 

6. Oregon Health Authority

 

7. Department of Education

 

8. Employment Department

 

9. Oregon State Police

 

10. Oregon’s 36 County Juvenile Departments

 

11. Oregon Department of Corrections

 

B. STATE & LOCAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

 

C. ADVOCACY GROUPS

 

Hearts With A Mission

Youth Shelter Should Be up and Running Soon: Privately Funded Facility Is Aiming for June 15 Opening

April 15, 2016. Kevin Widdison of the Daily Courier. Front Page News. Youth Shelter Should Be up and Running Soon: Privately Funded Facility Is Aiming for June 15 Opening

 

Juvenile Justice In Oregon

Farron Lennon, Duncan Campbell Child Advocacy Fellow

University of Oregon School of Law

 

D. PROGRAMS

 

1. Juvenile Justice Information System

 

• What is JJIS?

• JJIS Vision, Goals, and Values

• JJIS Data & Evaluation Reports

• Partner System

 

VII. JJ STUDIES/INVENTORIES

 

A. Study Design

 

   Studies & Information

   Justice System Exploratory Committee

   Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015

   http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_Studies.htm

 

B. Vetted Studies/Inventories

 

C. Further Readings

 

• Definition of Juvenile Law From Free Dictionary (The Exploratory Committee recommends this document as it has been difficult to understand Juvenile Justice for the layperson.)

 

The following list of references is just beginning. The Exploratory Committee will accept recommendations from any source.

 

•  Anderson, David C. 1998. "When Should Kids Go to Jail?" The American Prospect (May-June).

•  Bernard, Thomas J. 1992. The Cycle of Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

•  Burke, Michael K. 1995. "This Old Court: Abolitionists Once Again Line Up the Wrecking Ball on the Juvenile Court When All It Needs Is a Few Alterations."  University of Toledo Law Review 26.

•  Clark, J. David. 1990. "Juveniles and the Death Penalty: A Square Peg in a Round Hole." Mississippi College Law Review 10.

•  Feld, Barry C. 1991. "The Transformation of the Juvenile Court." Minnesota Law Review 75.

•  Juszkiewics, Jolanta, and Marc Schindler. 2001. "Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served?" Corrections Today 63 (February).

•  Knauerhase, Evelyn C. 1990. "The Federal Circle Game: The Precarious Constitutional Status of Status Offenders." Cooley Law Review

• .Martin, D. Ross. 1994. "Conspiratorial Children? The Intersection of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Federal Conspiracy Law." Boston University Law Review 74.

•  Mills, Deborah L. 1996. "United States v. Johnson: Acknowledging the Shift in the Juvenile Court System from Rehabilitation to Punishment." DePaul Law Review  45.

•  Rosenheim, Margaret K., et al., eds. 2002. A Century of Juvenile Justice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

•  Stetzer, William T. 1996. "The Worst of Both Worlds." Washburn Law Journal 35.

•  Whitehead, John T. and Steven P. Lab. 1999. Juvenile Justice: An Introduction. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

 

VIII. MALPSS

 

   MALPASS

   Minimally Acceptable Level Of Pubic Safety Services

   Justice System Exploratory Committee

   Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015

   http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/malpss.htm

 

Josephine County’s Minimally Adequate Level of Public Safety Services Standards (MALPSS), Section III.C. Components Of JO CO Public Safety Program For Increased Funding: 2012 - 2015.

 

•  Walker, Mike; Whalen, Jon, Members JS&PSS Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Very Draft December 15, 2015. Appendix B4. JO CO’s Minimally Adequate Level of Public Safety Services (MALPSS) Standards, Including Law Enforcement Staffing & Deployment. Supporting Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015. Hugo, OR.

 

Executive Summary Of Appendix B4. Minimally Adequate Levels of Public Safety Services (MALPSS) Standards

 

•  Dec. 15, 2015. Mike Walker & Jon Whalen. Executive Summary Of Appendix B4. Minimally Adequate Levels of Public Safety Services (MALPSS) Standards (Public Outreach 5.6).

 

Summary Highlights: Minimally Adequate Levels of Public Safety Services (MALPSS) Research Project

 

•  Dec. 15, 2015. Mike Walker & Jon Whalen. Summary Highlights: Minimally Adequate Levels of Public Safety Services (MALPSS) Research Project (Public Outreach 5.5).

 

IX. COURTS

 

Constitutional Requirements: Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

Justice System Exploratory Committee

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/courts1.htm

Downloaded April 12, 2016

 

I. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

    A. Amendment VIII of the United States Constitution

    B. Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution

 

II. INTERPRETATIONS

    A. Eighth Amendment: A Guide to the Eighth Amendment

    B. Amendment VIII – Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment

    C. Eighth Amendment: Free Dictionary

    D. How the Courts View ACA Accreditation

 

III. OREGON

    A. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission

    B. Court Opinions

 

IV. UNITED STATES

    A. Public Safety Organization

    B. Court Opinions

 

V. ACADEMIA

 

X. JO CO JJ PRE-STUDY RESEARCH PROJECTS

 

A. Juvenile Justice Facilities/Work Units

 

1. Administration

2. Court & Field Services Facility (1999)

3. Detention Facility: 14 Beds (1999)

4. Shelter Facility Beds: 16 Beds (1999)

 

B. Pre-Study Research Projects

 

1. Outreach Projects

 

a) Staffing Analysis

 

What documented staffing analysis has been completed for the JO CO JJ Department?

 

What organization’s staffing standards were used for the staffing analysis?

 

1. Oregon.

2. American Correctional Association (ACA).

3. National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP).

4. Others?

 

A staffing model portrays the future staffing requirements (the demand) as determined by strategic and operational planning efforts (issue identification). Simultaneously, the model takes current staff data and forecasts what the future staffing needs (the supply) will be. These two pieces of information (the supply and the demand) are contrasted to determine what the gap or surplus will be. From this analysis, staffing plans are created and implemented. Finally, the results are measured for efficiency and effectiveness.

 

b)  Professional Web Page for JO CO JJ Department

 

The Josephine County Juvenile Justice Department’s web page is a component of the Josephine County’ web page. It looks like government and it is brief in helpful information toward public understanding. It would communicate effectively with JJ professionals.

 

Josephine County Juvenile Justice

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=163

 

The JO CO JJ Department needs a professional web page to promote and informed public.

 

For example:

 

• Washington County Juvenile Department - http://www.co.washington.or.us/Juvenile/

• Clackamas County Juvenile Department - http://www.clackamas.us/juvenile/

• Multnomah County, Dept of Community Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Services - https://multco.us/dcj-juvenile

• Marion County Juvenile Department - http://www.co.marion.or.us/JUV

• Benton County Juvenile - https://www.co.benton.or.us/juvenile

 

It is speculated that citizen groups (i.e., pro or con tax levies) would be willing to subsidize and/or secure volunteer services for web publications.

 

c)  Flow Chart of Josephine County Juvenile Justice Department

 

Flow diagrams describing the processes and stages of Oregon's county juvenile justice departments are very valuable in attempting to understand the public safety service. It is just too darm complex.

(see Courts web page, Chapter VI. Oregon Courts:   Oregon Judicial System)  All see the following examples.

 

•  Juvenile Justice System Structure and Process Case Flow Diagram

   Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

•  Yamhill County’s Juvenile Justice System. Yamhill County, Oregon Juvenile Justice Department.

•  Marion County Juvenile Department’s Flow Charts. Marion County, Oregon Juvenile Department.

      Overview
      Referral Processing
      Offense and Risk Based Referral Processing
      Measure 11 Offense Process Flow
      FAA with petition held in abeyance
      Aid and Assist (370 Evaluation) - Process for youth with mental disease or defect considerations
      Rapid Outpatient Assessment Response for Detention Youth
      Marion County Juvenile Justice: 2014 Disposed* Criminal Referrals

 

2.  Other Pre-Study Research Projects