2008-66-Minutes for Meeting January 07,2008 Recorded 2/13/2008DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS r T
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ 1008■66
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
02/13/2008 02;43;21 PM
11111111111111111111111111
I; 9ee-se
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
°1G 2
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
{ 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2008
Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioner Tammy Baney; Ernie
Mazorol, Court Administrator; Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp,
Deputy County Administrator; citizen member Jack Blum; Ken Hales, Community
Justice; Jacques DeKalb, Defense Attorney; Bob LaCombe, Juvenile Community
Justice; SheriLarry Blanton; Ruth Jenkin and Tracy Jones, Sheriffs Office; Bob
Smit, KIDS Center; Hillary Saraceno, Commission on Children & Families; Bob
Warsaw, Oregon Youth Authority; and Becky McDonald, 9-1-1.
Also in attendance were Chief Andy Jordan, Bend Police Department; Charity
Hobold, Adult Parole & Probation; Carl Rhodes, Oregon State Police; Scott
Johnson, Lori Hill and Terry Schroeder, Mental Health; Steve Gunnels, District
Attorneys Office; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; and citizens Rick
Treleaven, Best Care Treatment Services; Dee Hansen, Pam Marble and Bob
Marble, NAMI; Jessi Watkins, JBar JYouth Services; and Robin Henderson, St.
Charles Medical Center. No representatives of the media were present.
1. Call to Order & Introductions
Chair Sullivan called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m., at which time the
attendees introduced themselves.
2. December 2007 Minutes.
Jack Blum pointed out that the minutes indicate Tammy Baney and Mike Daly
had attended, but they had not.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2008
Page 1 of 5 Pages
BLANTON: Move approval of the minutes, as amended.
JORDAN: Second.
The vote was unanimous.
3. Public Comment
Dee Hansen of NAMI gave an overview of a nine-week course relating to
mental health issues that will soon be available in Central Oregon. The course
is given by those who have had a mental illness and are in recovery, and is
meant to help those who are still suffering from mental illness. NAMI has
found it cuts down on the amount of reapplies, and in due course helps to cut
down on recidivism. She distributed a brochure on the course and said to let
her know if the members know anyone who might benefit from attending.
4. Acute Care Services at Cascade Healthcare Community
The group discussed Sage View and psychiatric emergency services at St.
Charles Medical Center.
Dr. Robin Henderson explained that there might be some information that I s
not fully understood or realized to be totally accurate. She is the director of
Behavior Health Services which provides psychiatric emergency services in all
of eastern Oregon; the only beds between Deschutes County and Idaho. Sage
View has an acute psychiatric unit with 15 beds; it was originally to be a
residential facility but was flipped to acute care so the cost can be reimbursed
by Medicare. It has been operating or about three years and has the same
philosophy and mission as St. Charles, regardless to the individual's ability to
pay. There is concern over how to pay for these clients.
The model is unique and goes into the future about how pirate and public health
services can work together. They have a good idea of the cost and how many
people might fit the criteria. The agreement contains provisions to take in folks
that need help and make adjustments if the allotment is exceeded. Other
counties won't provide services if they run out of money.
Molly Wells distributed a brochure regarding the program, which addresses the
needs of voluntary and involuntary patients. The seclusion restraint room is not
utilized; instead people are sent to the emergency room facility.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2008
Page 2 of 5 Pages
The program is based on recovery, as the goal is for patients to have good and
productive lives. They are also encouraged to help themselves as much as
possible. Over 2,500 clients have been served in three years, with 30% indigent
or self-paying and 20% covered by Medicare. They come to Bend from around
the region. Some are referred by Parole & Probation.
In regard to patients over age 65, a determination is made whether there is
dementia or Alzheimer's, in which case another type of facility may be more
suitable.
Ms. Henderson said that they do not provide children's services at this time but
can hold the child until they can get where they need to be. Ms. Wells added
that sometimes the mobile crisis team can help the client and family. Feedback
is appreciated.
The Police Chief and Sheriff were encouraged to share information on the
program with their staff.
Pam Marble explained the situation involving her son; it was determined that he
was not in imminent danger of harm so was released. Ms. Wells explained that
civil commitment criteria are very stringent and by law someone may have to
be released. Judge Sullivan added that he understands the Marble's concerns,
but this is not the time or place to address this particular situation.
5. Program Developments at Deschutes County Mental Health
Scott Johnson gave an update on improvements planned for 2008. He distributed a
handout at this time, and then gave an overview of the various items.
As always, a lot of funding comes through legislative action; Representatives
Burley and Whisnant are supportive.
Sheriff Blanton said that the local mental health crisis team and the Mental
Health Court are good examples of how the various entities can work together.
6. HB 3369 Report
Ken Hales gave an update on the status of the 3369 report. He said he
examined the minutes of LPSCC meetings from the past two years and found
that although LPSCC addressed the issue, no information was submitted.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2008
Page 3 of 5 Pages
A formal recommendation was made four times. He noted that a number of
recommendations resulted in the reallocation of existing resources or grant
funds.
Mr. Hales will submit a final report as soon as possible.
7. New Sex Offender Protocols
Charity Hobold provided a briefing on a new evaluation tool and supervision
standards. The new tool helps to determine the level of recidivism. Thirty-six
counties supervise parole and probation clients under guidelines set by the
Oregon Association of Community Corrections Officers. The model used in
the past did not include sex offenders. Canada does a lot of research on sex
offenders, so this information is utilized.
Judge Sullivan added that there are 110 people in the program, which is
significant.
8. Special Services Fund
Ken Hales discussed a preliminary concept for fund administration. Expansion
was discussed as an alternative; some mechanism to allocate resources to sustain
special programs and develop new ones. One item of consensus is whether
funding should be used for existing programs or if it should be used only to
enhance or initiate new programs; and whether enhancing or initiating a new
program should be treated equally. He will pull together a design committee to
reconfirm the purpose and scope of the fund. This group will disband and a
second group will come together to decide how to spend the money. It will be
important to know if funding is for a specific department or use.
Sheriff Blanton emphasized that some programs have proven themselves over
time and should be fully funded first.
9. Juvenile Community Justice Update
Bob LaCombe provided a program update; he said that Deevy Holcomb worked
up statistics that show the numbers are higher than in 2006. Most of the
incidents involve property.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2008
Page 4 of 5 Pages
Parole Officers handling juvenile offenders have ten more cases each, mostly
males over age 14. About 72% of referrals are male. Some are drug tested;
some are not - it depends on what the court orders. Some go into treatment
voluntarily but don't complete the program.
Mr. LaCombe stated that it is difficult to determine the trend. There are more
juveniles with mental health issues and some are just not very bright; and there
are a few really bad ones that usually come from another area.
Bob Marble stated that there are more people suffering from mental illness now,
and it is hard to be equipped to handle this problem. Judge Sullivan stated that
he believes there isn't a county that is more committed to this issue that
Deschutes County. The system as a whole has to be addressed, and there are a
lot of other issues besides mental illness that need attention. Vicki Grant added
that there is an exceptional group of people working to solve the problem, and
the skills are here; the problem is money and getting what is needed through the
legislature.
10. Other Business
No items were submitted for the February meeting.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign-in sheets
Exhibit B: Agenda
Exhibit C: Sage View Brochure
Exhibit D: Memo regarding FM 3369 Report Templates
Exhibit E: Sexual Offender Supervision Literature
Exhibit F: Juvenile Community Justice Trends and Issues
Exhibit G: Integrated Approaches to Family Court Case Processing
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, January 7, 2008
Page 5 of 5 Pages
z
z
V
W
Q
L.LI
J
00
u
~
O
N
'
C
C
C
C
n+
J
r
bQ
C
N
N
E
V
~
v
ca
Z
41
.
1
~S
v
.C
0
m
v
m
a~
a
z
z
W
Q
W
J
a
00
O
O
N
C
~
.s
co
c
0
'
d 7
v'.
s
-4L
J
LI
I
v
v
~
bQ
C
Q)
C
E
"
v
fa
z
V /
~
D
~
J
i
-
r
V
N
.E
0
m
0
c
L
v
L
v
a
DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
~G'ek vTes C"
0 ZA
January 7, 2008; 3:30 pm, Allen Room, 2nd Floor County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR
Monthly Business Meeting
Agenda
Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan
II December Minutes Attachment 1
Judge Sullivan
Action: Approve November minutes
III Public Comment
Judge Sullivan
IV Acute Care Services at Cascade Healthcare Community
Dr. Robin Henderson
Discuss Sage View and the Psychiatric Emergency Services at SCMC.
VI Program Developments at Deschutes County Mental Health Attachment 2
Scott Johnson
Update on improvements planned for 2008
VI HB 3369 Report
Ken Hales
Update on report status
Attachment 3
VIII New Sex Offender Protocols Attachment 4
Charity Hobold
Provide briefing on new evaluation tool and supervision standards
IX Special Services Fund Attachment 5
Ken Hales
Discuss preliminary concept for fund administration
X Juvenile Community Justice Update Attachment 6
Bob LaCombe
Provide program update
XI Other Business
Judge Sullivan
Attachment 2
Deschutes County Mental Health (DCMH)
2008 Initiatives benefiting public safety, client care
Report to Local Public Safety Coordinating Council January 7, 2008
1. Mental health court expansion from 12 adults to (up to) 25
Additional referrals will be accepted early in 2008. Requires use
of reserves; not sustainable without additional revenue.
2. Drug court sustained at 25 families.
DCMH grant administrator. Currently 25 adults, 42 children.
First graduations Feb. 2008. Sustainability of Byrne $ in question.
3. New AOD treatment in jail and post release (with DCSO)
Criminal Offender Tx. & Recovery Program. Seamless screening,
assessment and treatment. RFP Jan. 2008; to be contracted.
Services in facility (DCSO post release (DCMH AOD equity
4. New Treatment & Recovery Program: Addicted Families
Intensive alcohol/drug abuse outpatient treatment for adults
referred by child welfare. RFP Jan. 2008. Expected to serve 79
families in 18 months. Complements drug court services.
5. Bridge Program expansion - doubling staffing to 2 ffe
Expanding community reentry from jail services. Case management,
treatment, referral to other services. Adds treatment capability.
Need to sustain and expand: sustain fte funded with reserves; add 3rd.
6. Training law enforcement officers - Crisis Intervention Training
Training of Redmond PD officers re. services, protocols, Mobile Crisis
Team. Joint effort with LEAs to offer CIT periodically is recommended.
7. Other behavioral health initiatives
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Sustain new Mobile Crisis Team for Deschutes & Crook.
New acute care funds to improve Sage View rate; assure indigent
access to Sage View and Psychiatric Emergency Services at SCMC.
New early psychosis program to work with 20-30 teens and young adults.
Expanded supported employment program benefiting 70 more clients.
Proposed - 10-bed secure residential treatment program;
8-bed residential treatment program. Includes 4 PSRBoard beds.
9 State Hospital Extended Care Beds and 5 county-managed.
Proposed - expand homeless outreach; add a new
transitional housing program (Bethlehem Inn & Housing Works)
DIVERSION / TREATMENT
DIVERSION / TREATMENT
TREATMENT IN FACILITY
AND OUTPATIENT
INTENSIVE OUTPATIENT
REENTRY, CASE MANAGEMENT
AND TREATMENT
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
AND REFERRAL
CRISIS SERVICES, HOUSING,
JOBS, ACUTE CARE
Criminal Justice / LPSCC rpt new $ 1.7.8 1/6/2008
s
- ter-
,
• a
o 'U
Q) ms a
CU W
o 411
Ml ON
U *~j
y .0 O w >O ° p
0
0 4-1 E-4
O
A ) u, ~ ~ uC-dam cu =S A u 2 a o m F- U)
CU M
Z Q) V-4
t,,3U) G)u fir'" UD -,4~a~~~"
2 >'o ~w z 3 ~ [ CU 0 'o o ors U o00p'6 M N
O , c~ O O i- 4 w w ~ ~ w a~i Ca •--i Li i N
Q) a) Lf)
14 cu 0 QJ
bA >A ~ cd U u. 'v> ~ O O ~ ° -ZI
bJl
03rz0~ UU Ha~1-4 ~ ~n~°awa, vi m
0
x
y ai bA
O v O (L)
's.
U-( 16-4
v~ O' O v °
4-4
04 p C > O `s
bA -r N L6;4 -i U E
11
C) 4-a 4-j
tz S"'. Cn CA s"' 0 cn a..i O
4-s Qr c~ U cC . C U "d OJ car
0-4 0
4-1
-c$ .2 OD
o o a, o o? o o " 7:$ v .fl co
• E--y E- E~- C o 'U o ~ p Q cn E~-~ P4 Q. a
t
O
O
2
4
i-4
00
4-4
U
C
~
V
v
O
b~
4-
O
to
~
4"'
bA
.
'
z
o
o~
~
U
o
C's
C,3
to
'v
fly
~
w
V
)
o
a~
C
O
U
V CZ
(Z cz
lV
U
X ,R3
C
ct
C CL
c,z
vs
u
(n
L~
-J
O
Ei
% r
A
U
cz
04 ~ ~
4-) 0 4-4 4-J
U
t~
O
~1.
c~
N
U
N
G~
vi
O
OU O , a?
~0,,
N ~ C
v~
O bn
~
O U
r~
?
c
~
O Vim]
O
"
p
V~
gy
O
~
N ~
U
C
U
0
0
QI
O
Cd
7
o ~
Ld
U ~
ZE
4-1
C
D v~
U
N
O
b1J
U •O
O
~ o
O
U
W
a~
C
U
t_L
v
A
U
C
0
O
W
T~SI
=4
3
O
a
CA Q
0
r
0
s
r
•o
U
w
ctS
O
U'
-14
~
i
uj
p
O
CL
G~
G~
S r
4-J
O
b1J
a~
cn
O
CZ
cC
O
0
W
cis
O -O
U
U
jL
0
16-d
H
1U-
U
Q
d"
N
C
O
G~
rn
m
N
c~
O
O
4-4
U U
p O
0.
Q~
CC$
U
w
O
c~
U
O
~
U
U
O f~
(S$
O
v
b
ao
Qc~
N
O ~
~ O
O
Attachment 3
Memo
To: County LPSCCs
From: Mike Stafford, Public Safety Coordinator
Date: December 5, 2007
Re: HB 3369 Report Template
It is time to start asking for the annual LPSCC report required in HB 3369. As a reminder the bill states
Boards of County Commission that have Local Public Safety Coordinating Councils (LPSCCs):
"(1) shall publish an annual summary of program, service or budget changes made in response to
the recommendations of the local public safety coordinating council described in ORS 423.560 and
423.565.
(2) The report described in subsection (1) of this section shall be provided to the local
public safety coordinating council and the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission."
In late July, at the request of the LPSCCs attending the annual conference, I sent out a suggested
template to help LPSCCs fulfill this statute. In response we have drafted the attached template. This is
only a suggested format.
Representative Nathanson, who authored the bill, feels that having the date of the recommendations
made by LPSCCs to the Boards, a description of the recommendation, the Board's action regarding the
recommendation, which policy or program was affected and the amount of funding provided would fulfill
the requirement. The only caveat is that the recommendation description should be complete enough
that anyone reading would understand the intent of the recommendation.
We hope the template provides a simple way to list the recommendations and results. We also feel
that it would probably be easiest for the LPSCCs themselves to maintain the lists for eventual return to
the CJC. As we are required to have the reports ready for the legislature we are asking that the reports
be sent to us by the end of the year. This will allow us to compile the reports and have them available
for the legislature in February.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
503-378-4845 or mike. stafford(a-state.or.us
0 Page 1
Annual LPSCC Report
(HB 3369)
County:
Report Period:
Reporting Person:
Please note any specific changes made in the recommendation in the Commission Action box
Date
LPSCC.
Recommendation
Commission action:
accept/reject/modi )
Policy/Program
affected
Funding
provided
• Page 2
Attachment 4
The Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Offenders Tab 10
STABLE72007 - TALLY SKEET
Subject Name:
Place of Scoring:
Date of Scoring:
Name of Assessor:
Scorin Item
Notes
Section
Total
Significant Social
Influences
Capacity for
Relationship Stability
Emotional ID with
(Only score this item for child molesters).
Children
Hostility toward
women
General Social
Rejection
Lack of concern for
others
Impulsive
Poor Problem Solving
Skills
Negative Emotionality
Sex Drive
Sex Preoccupation
Sex as Coping
Deviant Sexual
Preference
Deviant Sexual Interests in Possible Remission An offender who has scored a "2" based upon historical facts
can have their Deviant Sexual Interest score reduced by one point if the following is present: The offender is
involved in an age appropriate, consensual, satisfying sexual relationship of at least one years duration while
.at risk" in the community with the absence of behavioural indicators of Deviant Sexual Interest for 2 years.
If the presence of this relationship has been confirmed by a credible, independent, collateral contact and the
above condition applies you may enter and count a "ne
ative i" in thi
b
d
i
'
g
s score
ox - re
uc
ng the offender
s
overall score b "I"
Co-operation with
Supervision
Sum for Final Total
(Out of 24 for those without a child victim, see Tab 8, page 36 for definition of a "child")
26
Interpretive Ranges: 0 - 3 = Low, 4 -11 = Moderate, 12+ = High
H:/My Docs/Tab 10 Case profiles Exercise 070401
4
The Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Offenders ACUTE-2007
ACUTE-2007 - TALLY SHEET
Subject Name:
Place of Scoring:
Tab 12a
Date of Scoring:
Name of Assessor:
Sex/Violence Score
Sum four factors
Score
General Recidivism Score
Sum all seven factors
Scoring
• Victim Access
Copy these scores over
• Hostility
4 Copy these scores over
• Sexual Pre-occupation
Copy these scores over 4 ~
0 Rejection of Supervision
4 4 Copy these scores over
• Emotional Collapse
5 Collapse of
Social Supports
• Substance Abuse
Sex/Violence Total
(Sum of four factors)
General Recidivism Risk Total
(Sum of all seven factors)
.
Sex and Violence Risk and General Recidivism Risk
SexNiolence Nominal Categories General Recidivism Risk Nominal Categories
(Sum of four risk factors) (Sum of all seven risk factors)
Low Priority 0
Moderate Priority 1
High Priority 2+ (plus)
Low Priority 0
Moderate Priority 1 - 2
High Priority 3+ (plus)
H:/My Does/Tab 12a ACUTE-2007 Tally Sheet 070401
CONCEPT OUTLINE Attachment 5
Alternatives to Incarceration Development Program (AIDP)
Program Design Committee
• To provide recommendations on the purpose, finance and eligibility, goals and
operating concept.
• Determine if funds are used for direct services to the target populations and/or for
system improvements.
• Determine the target population.
• Determine specific types of initiatives funds may be used for
• Design committee participants; Director Johnson, Court Administrator Mazorol,
Captain Jenkin, Executive Director Saraceno, and Deputy Director LaCombe and
Director Hales.
• Unless recalled by the chair, the program design committee will dissolve
following completion of its task.
Purpose(s)
• To finance new or innovative programs and provide opportunity for these services
to demonstrate their value. (and/or)
• To enhance or maintain current alternatives to jail incarceration and juvenile
crime prevention.
Finance and Eligibility:
A county agency will be identified by the Board of County Commissioners to
receive an annual AIDP program budget.
The steering committee sets its funding priorities. By decision of the steering
committee monies are transferred from or expenditure are made from the AIP
account.
• Department responsible for service delivery will procure services.
Steering Committee
The steering committee will identify annual funding priorities, review annual
program performance reports and select funding recipients.
The following persons or their designee will be asked to participate on the
steering committee; Presiding Circuit Court Judge of the 18th Judicial District,
Deschutes County Sheriff, Deschutes County Mental Health Director, Executive
Director, Deschutes County Commission on Children and Families, Director
Deschutes County Community Justice, and Deschutes County Administrator.
LPSCC 1/7/08 Attachment 6
January 7, 2008
Local Public Safety Coordinating Council
Update on Juvenile Community Justice Trends and Issues
Workload and Population Trends 2001-2007
Total number of offenders and
referrals up 2% from 2006, still less
than in 2001
Criminal offenders and referrals*,
Juvenile Court Petitions**, and cases
resulting in Probation*** increased by
about by 15% in 2007. Property
offenders/referrals* gained by 18/20%.
Non-criminal offenders and referrals*
down by 13% in 2007.
Male youth over 14 with property
offenses are single largest population
in juvenile system.
Person offenses count for less than
14% of all referrals.
Almost 40% of current caseloads at
medium to high criminogenic risk****.
Males account for about 72% of
criminal referrals and 84% of
detention admissions.
Detention admissions***** increased
by 14% in 2007 after 2-year
decrease. In keeping with increase in
referrals and court petitions.
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Deschutes County Juvenile Referrals 2001-07
7Referrals
0 Non-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Criminal
Referrals
Criminogenic Risk of Juveniles Under
Supervision 2007
15.3%
■ High
■ Moderate
60.2°10 24.5% 0 Low
t Detention
Admissions
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
* Juvenile Justice Information System Report #56
**Deschutes County Circuit Court, January 3, 2008; (551 to 632)
**Juvenile Justice Information System Report #207
****Juvenile Justice Information System Report #240
*****Juvenile Justice Information System Report #85
Prepared by Deevy Holcomb, Management Analyst (Contact at 617-3356) 1/4/08
1/5/08 LPSCC Update
Deschutes County Juvenile Detention
Admissions 2002-2007
VVV
570
T-
540
510
480
450
420-
390
-
360
330
300
1 of 2
Outcome Trends 2004-2006 (2007 data available March 2008)
Victim Satisfaction* 2004-06
Victim satisfaction improving;
average satisfaction rating is "4" on
scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest.
Restitution payment fell in 2005, up in
2006. To date in 2007 stands at 92%.
CWS fell in 2005 and 2006. To date
in 2007 remains at 2006 levels. Have
increased response rate to
community graffiti reporting.
Marijuana and alcohol continue to be
most predominant drugs of choice.
Drug and alcohol treatment
completion rates around 50%.
Percent CWS Completed*** 2004-06
Seeing encouraging early results with
Functional Family Therapy clients for
family functioning, prosocial behavior
and reduction in substance abuse.
Recidivism has remained
steady since 2002.
Definition: Percent youth
with a new criminal referral
within one year of initial
criminal referral.
LPSCC 1/7/08 Attachment 6
0)0,
70%.
8 `a 60%
"M 50%
V) 40%
- -
-
--i-At Disposition
-E-
m 30%
-
At Case Close
m` rn 20%
a=
2004 2005 2006
Year
Percent Restitution Paid** 2004-06
10 0
9 S
-~-FAA
Probation
- - --~-Court/Other
2004 2005 2006
Year
100%
90% -f- FAA
80%--
70% Probation
60% - 4 Court/Other
50% .
2004 2005 2006
Year
Deschutes County Juvenile Recidivism**** 2002•
05
40%
35% - - -
30%-
25%-
20%
.
2002 2003 2004 2005
*Juvenile Community Justice Department Internal Records
and Juvenile Community Justice Case Close Access Database
-**Juvenile justice Information System Annual Reports 2006. 2006 Data available March 2008.
1/5/08 LPSCC Update
2 of 2
Future Trends in State Courts
r .
u~ o 2007
4 3 1'.
Integrated Approaches to Family-Court Case Processing
Ernest J. Mazorol III, Trial Court Administrator, State of Oregon-11th Judicial District
Future Trends Statement: Deschutes County, Oregon uses an Integrated Family Court to
improve the service it gives to families involved in litigation. So far, this resulted in fewer
conflicting court orders, more reunifications of family members, and other benefits for
families and the state's courts.
In Deschutes County (Bend, Oregon), the Integrated Family Court was established in 1994,
shortly after the National Center for State Courts published Court Coordination of Family
Cases.0 When the program started, the court employed unique service-delivery techniques
that caught the attention of the National Center for State Courts, researchers, judges, court
administrators, and a wide array of elected officials. 11 The program is virtually identical
today as it was when it started over a decade ago. The court and community are confident
in their approach based on prominent research findings and a recent publication to further
justify integrated family courts.
In Oregon, trial courts are consolidated into a single-level circuit court. All circuit-court
judges throughout the state have general-jurisdiction authority. In Deschutes County, five of
the seven circuit-court judges actively manage their family-court caseload under an
individual case-assignment system. Two structural components exist in this family court-
one is mandatory and the other is voluntary to the parties.
Top
Under the mandatory component, all cases (criminal and domestic) associated with a family
are assigned to one judge throughout their court involvement. The court uses liberal
assignment procedures to link family members when a child or children are involved in these
matters. Beyond the traditional definition of family, cases are also linked with significant
others, guardians, grandparents, etc. The court staff has set up internal and external
procedures to identify and link family members as they enter the system with new and
ongoing case filings, and then assign those matters to the same judge. In a very small
number of cases, affidavits have been filed against judges for prejudice. When this occurs,
the entire family is typically reassigned to a different judge for these matters to remain
together.
Under the voluntary component, court staff meet with family members and counsel to
discuss service-delivery options. If the parties sign a confidentiality waiver, which they
commonly do, court staff assemble an array of service providers so a single plan. can be
developed for the entire family. The plan is created, with the family's input, in a
multidisciplinary team meeting facilitated by court staff. The plan is documented and
disseminated to those in attendance, accountability is established, and delivery dates are
monitored. While the plan is developed separate from the courtroom, progress reports and
additional services that may be ordered by the judge are frequently placed on the court
record with the family and service providers in attendance.
These practices quickly gained wide attention shortly after they were implemented. Several
articles were written, presentations were made at conferences, and numerous site visits
were conducted by interested jurisdictions. While the program received formal praise and
many favorable comments, it failed to be implemented on a wide scale outside of Oregon for
three primary reasons:
1. The scope was so broad that most jurisdictions felt it would be too difficult and time-
consuming to develop and foster the relationships needed to align their community
partners in an integrated manner with the court.
2. Judge burnout doing this type of work is high and the learning curve is steep,
reducing interest among judges to move in this direction or serve under the
assignment long-term.
3. While the program's concept and foundation were solid, research was unavailable to
justify and sell a dramatic shift in philosophy and procedure among interested
jurisdictions.
Top
In August 2002, the National Center for State Courts published Integrating Criminal and Civil
Matters in Family Courts. 1~1 Several recommendations were adopted and advanced to
support court and community collaboration and the integration of criminal cases in family
court. In November 2006, the Center for Policy Research published Integrated Approaches
to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Justice System, a report funded by the National
Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice. Rv The study compared three separate
sites, and the evaluation sample included 406 families, 1,399 case filings, and 8,680
hearings. Recognizing that research limitations exist in any study, key findings did evolve to
further justify, adopt, and advance the approach used in the Deschutes County Integrated
Family Court.
Here is a sample of the study's key findings:
• Fewer conflicting court orders existed in family cases processed under an integrated
approach. Less than 8 percent of the families studied had evidence of conflicting
orders, compared to 15 to 25 percent of families processed under traditional court
methods.
• Higher reunificationsmay result under the integrated approach. Among two study
sites, there was roughly a 50 percent greater chance of a child being reunified with
the family than under traditional court methods.
• Major criticisms were dismissedby professionals who participated in the study related
to due process, judicial bias, and coercion. Judges, attorneys, and service providers
set aside claims related to these concerns.
• Criminal family-court cases provide greater knowledgefor the trial judge. Judges may
be more strict or lenient based on how the family is complying and have more
leverage when criminal cases are included in the assignment system.
• Numerous advantages were citedamong professionals for the integrated approach,
such as universal understanding of the case, less contradictory and fewer duplicate
orders, and increased accountability for families and professionals to fulfill their
obligations in the service plan.
• Trial needs may lessenin dependency and criminal cases. In one site, stipulations
occurred in dependency cases 76.5 percent of the time. In criminal cases, guilty
pleas were entered in cases 87.7 percent of the time compared to 71.6 percent under
traditional court methods.
• Drug treatment ordersare more likely to occur in an integrated approach. This may
result from greater awareness of drug issues or increased access among the service
providers. Families with dependency cases in one site were ordered to drug
treatment 75.9 percent of the time compared to 52.4 percent of the time using
traditional court methods.
• Less time in carewas noted for children in Deschutes County compared to the other
sites. This shorter stay in care, although significant, could not be attributed to any
specific reasons.
Top
Regardless of these and other beneficial findings, courts still have internal and external
obstacles to overcome if they plan to move in this direction. Beyond broad judicial support,
the bench must consider areas such as structure, resources, calendar systems, training,
technology, etc. In addition, service providers and counsel must be prepared to change
their traditional practices to align services and reduce adversarial techniques. These
commitments may not be easy to obtain, but sufficient data are available to justify
integrated, community-wide efforts in family-court procedures.
Change occurs as momentum mounts. Traditional approaches are quickly moving out of
fashion as evidenced by the continued and rapid expansion of specialty courts. The time is
ripe to explore new ways to deliver services more effectively, especially in light of the
frustration judges and policy makers experience and voice daily. Best practices now exist to
invest the time, effort, and resources to move the courts and the communities they serve in
a promising direction.
Top
jijH. Ted Rubin and Victor Eugene Flango, Court Coordination of Family Cases (Williamsburg: National Center
for State Courts, 1992).
ii Carol R. Flango, Victor E. Flango, and H. Ted Rubin, How Are Courts Coordinating Family Cases?
(Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999).
iii Brenda K. Uekert, Ann Keith, and Ted Rubin, Integrating Criminal and Civil Matters in Family Courts:
Performance Areas and Recommendations (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002).
iv Dr. Nancy Theonnes, Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-case Families in the Justice System
(Denver: Center for Policy Research, 2006).
Future Trends in State Courts is a product of Knowledge and Information services
Office.
Copyright O 2007 The National Center for State Courts. All Rights Reserved.