Further Inquiries SB 222 Implementation Work Group

Further Inquiries SB 222 Implementation Work Group

JCIP Offices, Chemeketa Conference Room, 1133 Chemeketa St. NE

Tuesday Sept. 6, 2016 (12:00-1:15PM)

Call-in information:

Call-in: 641-715-3580
Code: 933-068

Introductions (5 Minutes)
Background (5 Minutes)
Why are we meeting?
What are we discussing?
What happens with what we decide to do?
Review and Discuss Recommendations Tabled During SB 222 Task Force (40 Minutes)
Judicial Resources
Creating a Dedicated Work Force
ICWA
Disproportionality
Determine Next Steps (10 Min) (Research? Craft Additional or Different Recommendation? Determine Costs?)

Meeting Notes

Call-in information:

Call-in: 641-715-3580
Code: 933-068

Introductions (5 Minutes)
Amy Miller, OPDS
Jeff Carter, Private Practice, Defense Bar
Joanne Southey, DOJ
Kamala Shugar, DOJ
Cynthia Stinson, DHS
Leola McKenzie, OJD/JCIP
Angela Fasana, Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde, Tribal Court

Background (5 Minutes)
Why are we meeting?
What are we discussing?
Issues that were identified by the larger task force, but where recommendations were not finalized (ICWA, Workforce, Disproportionality, Judicial Resources)
Each of these is equally a priority to the Governor
In addition, per discussion by the larger implementation group, this group will also discuss how to improve rural practices (what systemic efficiencies can be put in place)
What happens with what we decide to do?
This group will craft recommendations that will be passed up to the larger Implementation Work Group for approval and, where appropriate, inclusion in the draft legislation or other means of implementation
This may mean that getting the work done/recommendations out by January (a short timeline) will be most helpful
Review and Discuss Recommendations Tabled During SB 222 Task Force (40 Minutes)
Judicial Resources
Discussed recommendation #2:
Recommendation #2: Fund and hire three referees to work exclusively on dependency cases in jurisdictions whose juvenile courts are most under-resourced in terms of judge availability. The NCSC, after conducting an in-depth study of Oregon’s juvenile courts, is recommending that OJD allot an additional 50 minutes of judicial time to each dependency case. At current filing rates, that would require three additional full-time judicial officers across the state. Providing these positions and allowing OJD to place them in courts that most need additional judicial time for juvenile cases will allow for higher quality hearings, fewer problems in scheduling contested matters, and more efficient and effective processing of dependency cases and use of attorneys’ and parties’ time.
Discussed the extensive workload study that was preformed, the various focus groups that took place, and the ultimate recommendation that at least 3 judicial officers dedicated to Juvenile courts were necessary (and that there are areas where courts are particularly burdened and these practitioners are particularly necessary)
Concerns about the constitutionality of pro tem referees (used in some counties)
Concerns about referees generally (Are they constitutional? Do kids and families deserve constitutional judges?)
Discussed
the use of referees in other areas of practice (arraignments etc.)
the ability to request a rehearing with a constitutional judge
How frequently this is occurring is unknown
how overburdened many court systems are
how presiding officers allocate constitutional judges and how the availability of juvenile referees may offer a more targeted solution
Potential solution of juvenile law clerks was proposed
Requested Modification to Recommendation #2 (see below)
Details to be further discussed

Suggested Additional Recommendations about providing resources for Juvenile Court Judicial Clerks in busy dockets (see below)
Noted that this also has a risk of resource reallocation

Agreed on recommendation #3:
Recommendation #3: The Chief Justice should direct presiding circuit court judges to review the recent judicial workload study and assess whether or not their resource allocation for juvenile court is in line with the study’s recommendations. NCSC’s study of Oregon juvenile courts assessed the juvenile court needs of each judicial district, in addition to the needs of the state as a whole. This information may be helpful to presiding court judges’ resource allocation and judicial management.
Discussed this as an important tool to helping right size the judicial workloads across the state in lieu of the fact that presiding judges ultimately make decisions about resource allocation for juvenile court.

Agreed on recommendation #1 with edit below
Recommendation #1: The Chief Justice should direct the Juvenile Court Improvement Program (JCIP) Advisory Committee to 1) study the education requirements other states have established for judges who handle juvenile cases, and 2) make a recommendation to the Chief Justice on minimum educational and annual reporting requirements for Oregon Judicial Officers who regularly preside over dependency cases. Dependency law, child welfare policies, and the science around child development, and methods for incorporating trauma-informed practices are constantly changing and improving. A minimum training requirement for judges would ensure that decisions made in dependency cases are based on the most recent law and policy and the most up-to-date science. It also would promote consistency and continuity in judicial practice around the state.
Training recognized as essential to court funding and efficiency.
Initial concerns about this being an unfunded mandate, but upon further review realized that this does not require training, but rather for JCIP to review best practices and make a recommendation to the Chief Justice about how to proceed
Group discussed the importance of knowledge not just on child development but also domestic violence, substance abuse, etc. and determined that using the term “trauma-informed practices” captured the variety of issues that courts must be “up to speed on” to effectively preside over child welfare/dependency matters.

Discussed Recommendation #4:
Recommendation #4: The Chief Justice should direct presiding circuit court judges to strive to increase the amount of judicial time spent on dependency cases in accordance with the study’s recommendations. This allows for additional in-court time to implement best practices and off-bench time to both adequately prepare for hearings and complete post-hearing work. The NCSC’s ‘dependency best practices’ version of the OJD workload model shows that an increase of 50 minutes of dependency time over the life each dependency case would require an additional three judicial officers across the state.
Discussed concern that an additional 50 minutes could burden the entire system and prevent “access to the courts”
Discussed the difference between time spent on and off the bench
Specifically discussed the large burdens of off the bench of writing orders and how this burden is sometimes passed on to DOJ
Discussed whether or not staff
Discussed how some systems efficiencies may help with overburdened dockets and increase efficiencies
Dockets days
Distinct from the Salem Model, the docket days suggested were for rural counties which would designate a given day/time as the time for regular Juvenile Court hearings (with obvious exceptions for shelter hearings and trials)
Juvenile Clerks
Could shoulder a lot of the off the bench burden
Suggested Additional Recommendations
Docket Days (see below)

Creating a Dedicated Work Force
Could a clerkship program with judges be a part of this solution?
Ultimately table for discussion later
ICWA
Tabled for discussion later
Disproportionality
Tabled for discussion later
Discussed caution around “scope creep” and request for a clear scope statement for this group
Agreed that the findings of the report must be considered and that systems efficiencies for rural proceedings should be considered
Reminded that the TF report language and SB 222 language specifically suggest that system efficiencies be considered

Requested that Justice Brewer review the language in these recommendations to ensure propriety

Determine Next Steps (10 Min) (Research? Craft Additional or Different Recommendation? Determine Costs?)
Next Steps: Delineate a work plan for the next series of meetings (see below)
Next Step: Draft Scope Statement (see below)
Next Step: Craft Additional Judicial Resources Recommendations (see below)
Next Step: Doodle Poll/Set meeting through January

Relevant Task Force Recommendations

Implementation Recommendation: A voluntary subset of Task Force members should continue to meet regularly to implement the recommendations of this report. This voluntary group, comprised of Task Force members and stakeholders, will monitor and support the implementation of this report. This group will also work closely with judicial leadership and the JCIP, as well as the DOJ, DHS, OPDS, and DAs, to assess current laws and policies (including, but not limited to, Oregon Administrative Rules, Uniform Trial Court Rules, and Child Welfare Policies and Procedures), and promote changes that will support the implementation of these recommendations, improve system efficiency, and promote cost savings. The voluntary group may also explore areas for further inquiry listed below, develop recommendations and implement substantive practice changes.

Scope Statement

For Discussion at October Meeting

In order to support the larger recommendations of the Task Force report this subgroup will carefully review and discuss the findings of the Task Force report included in the “Areas for Further Inquiry” (including, Supporting Juvenile Courts/Judicial Resources, Developing a Dedicated Workforce, Decreasing Disproportionality, and Improving ICWA compliance). This subgroup will then craft recommendations to address these discrete and improve the overall practice of dependency representation. In addition, at the request of the larger voluntary implementation workgroup, this subgroup will explore changes could will improve system efficiency and promote cost savings in rural communities and court systems and make any corresponding recommendations.

Work Plan

For Discussion at October Meeting

October Meeting- (10/24 9:00-10:30 a.m.)

Finalize Judicial Resources Recommendations (if any)
Discuss Disproportionality/ICWA
Review Rural Practice Issue List and prioritize/schedule topics for next meetings

November Meeting- (11/18 11:00 a.m -12:30 p.m.)

Finalize Disproportionality/ICWA Recommendations (if any)
Discuss Workforce
Discuss Rural Practice Issues

December Meeting- (12/1 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.)

Finalize Workforce recommendations (if any)
Finalize Any Rural Practice Recommendations (if any)
Present to Dependency Representation Implementation Work Group (12/7 12:00-1:15 p.m.)

Judicial Resource Recommendations

For Review by Justice Brewer/Discussion at October Meeting

Recommendation #1: The Chief Justice should direct the Juvenile Court Improvement Program (JCIP) Advisory Committee to 1) study the education requirements other states have established for judges who handle juvenile cases, and 2) make a recommendation to the Chief Justice on minimum educational and annual reporting requirements for Oregon Judicial Officers who regularly preside over dependency cases. Dependency law, child welfare policies, the science around child development, and methods for incorporating trauma-informed practices are constantly changing and improving. A minimum training requirement for judges would ensure that decisions made in dependency cases are based on the most recent law and policy and the most up-to-date science. It also would promote consistency and continuity in judicial practice around the state.

*NEW* Recommendation #2: Provide OJD with the resources necessary to implement recommendations from the recent National Center on State Courts’ workload study. The Nation Center for State Courts, after conducting an in-depth study of Oregon’s juvenile courts, recommended that OJD allot an additional 50 minutes of judicial time to each dependency case. At current filing rates, implementation of this recommendation would require three additional full-time juvenile judicial officers across the state. Providing resources for OJD to implement this recommendation through judicial officers [and/or dedicated juvenile law clerks] will allow for higher quality hearings, fewer problems in scheduling contested matters, more efficient and effective processing of dependency cases and ultimately a better use of attorneys’ and parties’ time across the state.

Recommendation #3: The Chief Justice should direct presiding circuit court judges to review the recent judicial workload study and assess whether or not their resource allocation for juvenile court is in line with the study’s recommendations. NCSC’s study of Oregon juvenile courts assessed the juvenile court needs of each judicial district, in addition to the needs of the state as a whole. This information may be helpful to presiding court judges’ resource allocation and judicial management.

*NEW* Recommendation #4: The Chief Justice should direct presiding circuit court judges to strive to increase the amount of judicial time spent on dependency cases in accordance with the National Center on State Courts’ workload study recommendations. The addition of an average of 50 minutes per dependency case would allow for judges to spend additional in-court time implementing best practices and off-bench time to prepare for hearings and complete post-hearing work. To implement this recommendation effectively, presiding circuit court judges may need to consider whether or not implementation of the workload study recommendations requires reallocation of resources to juvenile court (see recommendation #3) and/or a request for additional Juvenile Judicial Officers or Juvenile Court Clerks (see recommendation #2).

Rural Practice and Efficiency Recommendations

For Discussion at November Meeting

*NEW* Recommendation: OJD, OPDS, DHS, and DOJ should work closely with and through model court programs, where they exist, and where they don’t, with judicial leadership, to implement court practices that support effective and efficient local court practices in rural counties and courtrooms across the state. Rural court systems provide unique challenges to effective dependency practice for attorneys representing parents, children, the agency and the state, not to mention the Judicial Officers presiding over these hearings. Practices including, but not limited to the ability to appear telephonically, dedicated consistent docket time for dependency proceedings, priority docketing for juvenile dependency matters, and consistent and reasonable periodic review hearings.