JIS JUVENILE AND CORRECTIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
January 19, 1999
Present:Sharon Bell, Bruce Eklund, John Gray, Judy Higgins, Rena Hollis, Fred Thompson, Deborah Yonaka, John Bauer, Norma Bryce, Mike Curtis, Alan Erickson, Allyson Erickson, Charlene Stevenson
Absent:Bernard Dean, Dave Guthman, Dennis Hausman, Bill Holmes, Mel Jewell, Kathy Lyle, Craig Stoner, Ernie Veach-White, DMCMA Representative
- APPROVE NOVEMBER 18 MEETING MINUTES
The Committee approved the November 18 meeting minutes.
- PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Plan
Alan presented for the committee’s discussion and approval a proposal for releasing person and referral functions of JCI in three phases rather than two as previously approved.
Phase I would include changing existing/adding new JIS Person screens and releasing them to the superior and district courts. Then sometime following that, JUVIS person data would be converted to JIS and juvenile departments would begin adding person data in JIS. A temporary “bridge” would be built between JIS and JUVIS so that the person data could then be sent to JUVIS for use in existing JUVIS functions, (including searching, referral creation/maintenance, detention processing, reporting, and query) prior to implementation of the new system. Estimation of actual implementation dates await further analysis.
Phase II would include developing and releasing the juvenile department referral (with related superior court changes), detention functions, and converting the remaining JUVIS data to JIS.
Phase III would include developing and releasing the probation module for the juvenile department probation units and for limited jurisdiction court probation departments.
The primary reason for proposing this approach is to provide earlier completion of smaller phases. A smaller first phase has the advantage of an earlier conversion of JUVIS person data to JIS. It provides an opportunity for earlier training of juvenile court personnel. And it provides for the development of a temporary bridge between JUVIS and JIS that can be used later during the Referral and Detention Phase in order to create referral/criminal history without duplicate data entry.
There was a question about funding for the next biennium and Alan reported he received assurance from the OAC Administration that completing the project during the next biennium is not an issue. Bruce also asked where linking risk assessment scores would be included and Alan responded that it would be done with the probation phase.
The committee agreed that phasing pieces of the new system and earlier training would make the overall transition easier on court staff.
Alan stressed that analysis for this approach has not been completed so there are no firm target release dates yet. If the committee approves the proposed project direction, then further analysis would be done to evaluate the impact of sealing records, destroying records, probation units, etc. and define limits for creating the temporary bridge between JIS and JUVIS.
When asked if there are any risks in using this approach, Alan stated that while nothing prevents building a bridge between JIS and JUVIS that no such venture is without impacts and associated risks. These need to be weighed against the impacts and risks of not implementing the new system in smaller phases. Risks include costs sunken into a temporary bridge, possible program problems and fixes, and lack of a phonetic search in JIS.
Is phonetic search in JIS necessary for the proposed Phase I? Could it be deferred to Phase II? This needs to be evaluated. Rena noted that it was a training issue, but that County Clerk staff could be available as help-resources for juvenile departments.
Bruce asked how parents would be linked in JIS. Alan said that including family relationship functionality in the scope of phase I would need to be evaluated. Charlene noted that parents may need to remain in JUVIS for Phase I and parent data converted later because creating family relationships in JIS is dependent on the existence of a referral (Phase II) in the current JCI design. The committee agreed parent information is needed to identify a juvenile and may need to be in JIS---juvenile departments use the parent name as an identifier for the child when doing searches in JUVIS for existing person records. Charlene responded that OAC would have to evaluate branching from the search result screen to family relationship information.
The committee approved the proposal for Phase I. OAC will pursue further analysis of the changes and report back to the committee. Alan said he hopes to have estimated completion dates for project phases at the next meeting.
JIS Person Changes
Charlene reviewed PER changes, new Address Information (AD) screen which are proposed, and discussed the ability to copy information from PER (parents and AKA). Changes to person data, processes, and screens need to be reviewed by other committees, including the JIS Person Database Advisory Committee, because of this is a high profile subject area that affects all JIS clients.
She also reviewed superior court case filing (SCCA) processes, including scenarios with and without a juvenile referral number, and how previously entered data would be selected and subsequently presented on SCCA for county clerks to use and/or edit during their case creation processes. The committee agreed that cooperation and coordination between the county clerk and juvenile department and communication with prosecutor (to put the referral number on the information) will be essential.
Charlene reviewed filing a juvenile dependency in JIS and proposed changes for linking between the juvenile referral and the superior court case. What happens if there are duplicate referrals?
- REVIEW NEW PROTOTYPE DESIGNS
Web Screens (see Attachment 1 - JCI GUI Options)
Charlene introduced the proposed screen layouts, navigation for JCI which will also be presented to the workgroup.
Status Tracking (see Attachment 2 - Sample Case Management Status Tracking)
Charlene reviewed definitions of status tracking terms. The Workgroup will be identifying events that will trigger status. She also reviewed the sample proposed tracking screen and how entries are created. Bruce expressed concern that the proposal is a charge level view and that what is needed is a referral level view that displays a consolidated view of offenses and their related status for a referral. Charlene responded that the proposed screen is a first cut and that a different view can be designed. Charlene noted that discussion of a referral level view of status tracking should include the possibility that the case/referral history screen could possibly fill the need for a more consolidated view. The project team will pursue these comments further.
Referral/Case History (See Attachment 3 – Referral/Case History & Criminal History)
Charlene introduced the history screens, noting that these will be reviewed in more detail with the Work Group.
- PROJECT ISSUES
The Committee reviewed and resolved, or updated the following project issues.
2 / How shall juvenile LFOs be converted to civil judgments?How are juvenile LFOs to be converted to civil judgments at age 18 and what is the impact on order tracking?
Committee Decision (01/19/99): Other than needing a status tracking event recorded when a judgment is attached to a juvenile offender cases, this is not a JCI system issue. Consider adding the judgment date on the status tracking screen. County clerks create the judgment in SCOMIS, and there is an existing procedure for doing this.
14 / Notification of child’s legal custodian
What is the appropriate source for legal custody information? Where should this information originate when juvenile courts are required to use it for notifying a child’s legal custodian?
Committee Input (01-14-98): Committee is unsure that this issue is a system issue; no requirement has been identified. Tabled.
Committee Decision (01-19-99): Securing legal custody information is a procedural and not a system issue. JCI Responsible Person field and Family Relationship information is sufficient to meet JCI requirements.
15 / King County Department of Youth Services’ participation in JCI Project
What is King County’s level of participation in the project?
King County Update (01-19-99): John Gray stated the directors of agencies participating in JJ-WAN will be meeting to discuss the JJ-WAN Requirements document, currently being produced. Upon completion in February, King County will compare JJ-WAN with JIS and then identify the feasibility of participating in JCI implementation.
29 /
Notice to courts re JUVIS data not to be converted
Need to notify courts of JUVIS data that will not be converted, including JUVIS Calendaring, Accounting, Order Tracking, and Master File Census Data (i.e., Medical Alert Data). Method?Committee Decision (01-19-99): Only future dates in JUVIS Calendaring will be converted. OAC to send letter advising sites to plan for migration from JUVIS Accounting and Order Tracking without conversion and of other data not to be converted. Letter mailed to all JUVIS sites on February 1, 1999. See Attachment 4.
36 / How to handle dependency case filing when referral pre-dates the filing?
A referral can exist with status information before a dependency case is filed. How will the system handle this?
Committee Decision (10-19-99): It is a local responsibility to place the referral number on the case-initiating document or to change local procedures. Recommendation forwarded to Pattern Forms Committee.
37 / What is the source of DSHS caseworker information for recording on dependency cases?
DSHS caseworker is needed as a participant on the dependency case. At the February 13, 1998, meeting, the Committee was uncertain of the source for this information.
Committee Decision (10-19-99): Gathering the caseworker information is a local procedure, but when it is recorded in the system, it needs to be on the calendar produced by CAPS.
The committee’s discussion and resolution of Issue 37 defined the following new issues:
124 / Referral Participants Printing on CAPS CalendarCheck with CAPS team to determine if participants from referral or court case can be printed on calendar.
125 /What participants do actions have in common?
Participants are not action-wide, that is they are either linked to an episode, a referral, or a case, not all three actions. Juvenile departments do not want to re-enter participants that are commonly linked to all three actions, attorney for example. Once a superior court case is linked to a juvenile referral, which case participants does juvenile department track?
The Committee continued its review of existing project issues, below.
40 / What is the authority to include CLJ criminal convictions on Juvenile Criminal History Report (Form 6)?Juvenile courts have defined a requirement that criminal traffic and criminal non-traffic convictions in CLJs should count towards criminal history and should be displayed on the Juvenile Criminal History Report (Form 6). Is there legal authority to count criminal convictions from CLJs as history for juvenile court jurisdiction purposes?
Status (10-19-99): Referred to OAC Legal Unit
41 / Unique identifier requirements for truancy case participants
It is a JCI requirement to record truancy participants with identifying information. What truancy case participants need to be identified uniquely on the JIS Person database; how can identifying data be collected and included in the case filing process; and who shall record it?
Committee Update (01/19/99): Minimum identifying data that is needed from the school on the Truancy Petition is the child’s name, DOB, address, and parents’ names. Some juvenile departments have worked with local school districts to secure this data on a routine basis. The committee recommends that 1) all Juvenile Departments work with their school districts to secure the needed identifiers, 2) that this be referred to the Person Database Committee for review, and 3) that it be referred to the Pattern Forms Committee to establish a pattern form with the necessary identifiers displayed on the Petition.
OAC Update: We are working with SPI to include identifying information for truant on the petition.
46 / Review/finalize referral type descriptions is needed
What referral types shall be established in the new system and how shall they be used. What is the impact, if any, of changing current referral type descriptions? Current JUVIS referral type descriptions include:
- Delinquency.
- Traffic.
- Other Violations.
- Status.
- Non Offense.
- Dependency.
- Diversion.
Committee Decision (11-18-98): The committee approved the following referral types, changing some of the proposed referral type codes to be more intuitively consistent with the referral type description. Each referral type includes a defined set of civil causes or offender RCWs (referral reasons). Each referral type acts as an umbrella category for the noted causes or RCW-based violations. Information about referrals can be organized by either Referral Type, Cause Code, or on a RCW basis, providing various levels of detail. The JUVIS “status” referral type will be discontinued; this type of referral is now covered by the Truancy referral type and other causes within the Dependency referral type.
Juvenile Referral Types
CodeDescriptionIncludes Cause Code(s) or RCW
JAAt Risk Youth/ Child in
Need of ServicesARY, CNS
JDDependencyABN, A/N, NPG, TER, DDP
JTTruancyTRU
JOOffenderRCW-based; includes diversion
JIInfractionRCW-based; includes traffic and other
non-criminal violations
Work Group Response 12/02/98: Nancy Wilson and Mike Curtis will document their issues with these groupings.
Work Group Decision 01/20/99: Both Nancy and Mike reported that their concerns about not being able to track by referral type are addressed by the cause codes for non-offender referrals.
56 / Does the entry of a new juvenile adjudication/conviction allow for the automatic unsealing of a sealed juvenile offender case independent of any judicial review or order?
OAC Legal Unit Response (06-17-98): Summary: Both the relevant statute (RCW 13.50.050(15) and the relevant court rule (GR 15(d)(3)) agree that any adjudication of a juvenile offense or a crime, subsequent to entry of an order sealing a juvenile offense file, has the effect of nullifying that order. The Legislature intended for the unsealing to occur automatically. In the statute, the only condition necessary for the unsealing to occur is the adjudication of the offense or crime. This however does not preclude continued judicial review of the file’s accessibility, nor does it preclude the original judge from entering a second sealing order. Notification of the subsequent adjudication and the unsealing of the file to the original judge would allow for continued judicial review of the case’s sealed status, and would allow for the originally sealed record to be used for sentencing purposes in the subsequent adjudication in compliance with RCW 13.50.050(15) and GR 15(d)(3). See Attachment 3
Alternatives:
- Case/Referral History will display sealed cases. Would this be sufficient to initiate unsealing action based on local policy?
- Consult judges (maybe the SCJA’s Family and Juvenile Law Committee) before taking any approach that does not follow the statutory language.
- Alert juvenile department to review case for unsealing.
- Do nothing.
New Requirement
The committee’s discussion of Issue #56 uncovered a new requirement: Need ability to seal at offense level. Find existing CLJ request or write new change request for current system.
58 / Exclusion of juvenile-referral names from indexesCNCI and SNCI currently exclude from public access names based on case participation (victim, for example) or sealed juvenile offender cases. Should the exclusion process be changed to be based on the viewer’s case type security privilege?
OAC Resolution and JCI Committee Concurrence 10/19/99: This item is not an issue because case type restriction is already in place for CNCI and SNCI. If the user does not have authorization to a given case type in their home court they will not see any cases with that case type for any court. If a superior court user has authorization to a restricted case type they will see cases with that case type on SNCI from all courts including their come court.
78 / The requirement for a person to have multiple case participant roles currently is not supported by JIS.
The same person may participate on a case as intake officer, detention worker, and probation officer. Can JCI support of this business process be met by means other than case participation?
JCI Work Group Decision 12/02/98 and JCI Committee Concurrence 10/19/99: The new Responsible Official Table will allow multiple case participant roles for officials.
85 / Impact of not converting “intake unit” from JUVIS to JCI
What is the impact of not converting “Intake Unit” on the Intake Officer Activity Report (JVR 3100)?
JCI Work Group Decision 12/02/98 and JCI Committee Concurrence 01/19/99: Intake Unit is a value in the new Responsible Official Table and the JUVIS Intake Unit will be converted.
86 / Does sealing a juvenile case effectively seal the social file?
Shall the juvenile department social file in JCI be sealed automatically when a legal case is sealed in SCOMIS within the same judicial district? The social file is juvenile-based, but the juvenile may have other legal cases that are not sealed.
Committee Update 01/19/99: The law provides for sealing the social file. Revisit issue during the Probation development phase.
88 /
Status tracking for cases that are consolidated in SCOMIS
When cases are consolidated in superior court, and the cases are linked to juvenile referrals, should all referrals associated to the consolidated cases receive the tracking information?JCI Committee Input 01/19/99: Project Team to see how the consolidation code is used.
Review Work Group Proposals/Resolutions