|
|
| AGENCY | DECISION POINTS |
| I. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT/PROBATION DEPARTMENT |
|
Discussion: At level one, local law enforcement agencies are making decisions about the level of personnel deployment in various communities. These deployment decisions can impact minority populations disproportionately. In many cases, these deployment decisions are made on the basis of calls for service, therefore, the documenting of calls for service by neighborhoods in conjunction with community mapping can illustrate which communities need services and resources. Law Enforcement agencies should develop clearly defined policies and criteria which guide all deployment decisions.
Also at this level, Probation Departments are making decisions about which clients will be served on intensive caseloads, which may increase arrest rates due to the higher level of scrutiny. Clearly defined policies and risk-based selection criteria should guide intensive caseload placements. Criteria should also exist to determine when a client can be removed from intensive supervision.
| II. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT/PROBATION DEPARTMENT |
|
Discussion: At level two, officers are faced with a decision to warn, divert, sanction informally, cite and release or arrest. Juvenile Court Law in California requires a "least restrictive" response. Departmental policies, training and practices should reflect these legal requirements. Efforts should be made to identify and eliminate barriers to releasing minors to parents. Cultural competency and bilingual capacity can affect the outcome. Probation Departments may develop a continuum of Court-approved administrative sanctions that are employed prior to arrest for probation violations. Statistics on warnings, diversion or informal sanctions, citations and arrest should be reported by ethnicity. Suggested booking criteria should be jointly developed by local law enforcement and Probation to guide officers when making a decision to transport to secure detention. Additionally, law enforcement agencies should track the rate of arrests versus citations to determine if they are choosing in-custody bookings rather than citations at a rate higher than other jurisdictions.
| III. PROBATION JUVENILE HALL STAFF |
|
Discussion: At level three, the law enforcement officer or probation officer has made the decision to bring the minor to the juvenile hall (secure detention facility) for booking. The institutional staff must make a decision to release the minor to a responsible adult or hold for the probation intake probation officer. Cultural competency and bilingual capability is useful in contacting parents. A risk-based detention criteria scale, which does not add unfair risk points for minority youth (e.g., gang membership, employment) should be utilized at this decision point. The use of the scale must be standardized, objective and come under constant scrutiny.
| IV. PROBATION INTAKE |
|
Discussion: At level four the intake probation officer gathers additional information pertinent to the decision to detain or release. The risk-based detention scale is adjusted accordingly. Cultural competency and bilingual capability is necessary. Objective and standard criteria should be applied. Staff should work diligently to eliminate barriers to a release to parents. Sufficient culturally competent, community-based alternatives to detention are critical.
| V. DISTRICT ATTORNEY |
|
Discussion: At level five the District Attorney has a series of decisions that can impact DMC both at the time of filing, but also following adjudication, as the minor faces continued exposure to detention, based on prior record. The District Attorney must develop a position on the use of detention alternatives. Measurable outcomes of detention alternative effectiveness should be utilized so that the District Attorney, Court and Probation can see if minors who are released to the community do make court appearances and stay free of new law violations. The District Attorney's Office must understand and concur with the objective risk-based detention scale utilized. A system should be developed to objectify and measure requests for investigation, filing decisions, plea agreements and positions on dispositional outcomes. Statistics on each decision point should be measured by ethnicity. Procedures which guarantee that individuals committing similar crimes, with similar past records, are treated the same must be employed and actual practices tracked by ethnicity.
| VI. PROBATION | At Detention Hearing:
|
Discussion: In California, probation officers can release minors to Home Supervision but must set the matter for a detention hearing. The Court then makes the final determination at the detention hearing. Many times the intake probation officer will not release to Home Supervision and the minor will remain in custody until the detention hearing. The probation officer may then recommend Home Supervision or a higher level of supervised release such as Electronic Monitoring. The use of these detention alternatives must be measured by ethnicity and must be available to youth in all areas of the jurisdiction. Culturally competent program providers, community partners and parents can all be utilized to provide a higher level of supervision. Utilization of these alternatives should be tracked by ethnicity.
| VII. PUBLIC DEFENDER AND DEFENSE ADVOCATES |
|
Discussion: The Defense Bar can impact DMC by providing bilingual/bicultural services, tracking cases by ethnicity and ensuring adequate staffing levels of attorneys and investigators to allow for thorough preparation of cases. Defense firms can go beyond legal advocacy by employing "defense advocates" or social workers who work along with the attorney and actively develop pre- and post-adjudication programs and release plans. These advocates contact family members, schools, relatives and other community resource providers in an effort to present a viable plan to Probation and the Courts. The Defense must understand the risk-based detention scale and actively review the initial scoring of the instrument by Probation. Defense advocates ensure that family members are present at hearings and that they understand their role in supervising their children. Defenders should track family contacts, plea agreements and other service indicators by ethnicity. Defense counsel can actively participate in the establishment of risk-based detention criteria and an administrative sanctions continuum for probation violations.
| VIII. COURT |
|
Discussion: At this level the Court exercises a whole series of decisions that are in large part informed by legal considerations, however, the Court's attitude toward and confidence in risk-based assessment for detention decisions can greatly impact DMC. The efficiency of the court process and the Judge's response to violations of his/her orders will also impact the profile of the population in secure detention. A wide array of culturally competent dispositional options must be available to the court. Judges can play a key role in identifying system barriers for minority youth and families which contribute to DMC. Courts should map dispositional and detention decisions by ethnicity to ensure that youth with similar histories and presenting offenses are handled similarly. Courts need to recognize that a well articulated continuum of pre and post dispositional services provides the opportunity for incremental adjustments by the court in response to both the negative and positive behaviors of the offender.
| IX. PROBATION | Placement/Dispositional options |
The efficiency and timeframe within which youth are removed from secure detention to the community or placement program is a key variable effecting DMC. The availability of a wide array of culturally relevant dispositional programs is vital. Probation Departments should track the time it takes to move youth to service, by ethnicity, and develop alternatives to secure detention once the jurisdictional order is made. Probation Departments must track utilization of dispositional programs by ethnicity to ensure that youth are receiving equal access to treatment. Family conferencing can be valuable when developing case plans.