- 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 COs JS&PSS Problem/Issue
-
- January 20, 2016
Letter/Email To Jim Goodwin, Director, JO CO JJ, From Committee
- Subject: Share
Information About JO COs JS&PSS Problem/Issue
-
- March 28, 2016
Letter/Email To Jim Goodwin, Director, JO CO JJ Dept., From Committee
- Subject: Learn
About JO COs 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 Citizens 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. Citizens 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. Oregons 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. Governors 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 dont consider themselves as
having good mental health. When people dont 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 countrys 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 Committees 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; childs 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. 98473, 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
agencys 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
facilitys 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
Committees 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, 2nd
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 Oregons
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 youths contacts and
confidential case records with the states 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 IGAs 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. Oregons 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 Countys 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 COs 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 organizations 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 Departments 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 Countys
Juvenile Justice System. Yamhill County, Oregon Juvenile Justice Department.
Marion County Juvenile
Departments 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
|