IJDP ABA Innovations in Public Defense February 21, 2017 Introduction: PD; LLS CJLP; Priv Pract; Directing Attorney IJD since 1/17.

Los Angeles County Population: 4 million (U.S. Census, 2018) 16.3 % of the population lives in poverty (U.S. Census, 2016 ) 22.2% of the population is under 18 (U.S. Census, 2016) 1,183 per 100,00 youth felony arrests in LA County (California Sentencing Institute, 2014-2015) 8,305 Delinquency filings annually (Judicial Council of California, 2014-2015) 9,921 youth under probation supervision (L.A. Probation Governance Study, 2017)

Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice System 8 juvenile delinquency courthouse; 19 courts 119 juvenile attorneys 56 Public Defenders 13 Alternate Public Defenders 50 IJDP Attorneys 3 juvenile halls Approximately 2000-2200 juvenile defendants are held in custody at a Juvenile Hall awaiting court action or transfer 18 juvenile camps

Independent Juvenile Defender Program In October 2016, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors authorized funding for a contract with the Los Angeles County Bar Association to create the IJDP. This contract memorialized an hourly rate of pay for contracted panel attorneys, rather than the longstanding flat fee. The IJDP oversees a panel of independent attorneys who provide legal services to youth who present a conflict of interest for the Public Defender and Alternate Public Defender. The IJDP’s mission is to provide its clients with the highest quality legal advocacy in the juvenile delinquency system. Since January 2017, IJDP attorneys have been appointed on over 1600 cases. IJDP’s Directing Attorney, Cyn Yamashiro, leads a staff of eight, including an appellate attorney, resource attorney, forensic social worker, lead investigator and four program coordinators. Following years of advocacy, October 2016 Board Motion. Two main features of the motion: (1) symmetry across PD, APD and IJD in terms of services provided, (2) not flat fee/95$ hour – Felony grade III rate.

Administration Panel Structure Four panels share responsibility for eight juvenile courts, organized as follows: North: Lancaster & Sylmar East: Eastlake & Pomona South: Long Beach & Los Padrinos West: Compton & Inglewood This reconfiguration is designed to ensure Equitable distribution of case assignments, Cross-pollination of best practices, And downward pressure on charge and dispositional outcomes between courthouses. Specialty Courts DJF Re-Entry Court, Dual Jurisdiction Court, STAR Court, and Sylmar & Eastlake Drug Courts.

Practice Philosophy Mission: to provide the highest quality legal services for youth in the juvenile delinquency system. The IJDP practice model is based on a holistic approach, recognizing the multiple, vital environmental factors that impact the failure or success of a minor interacting with the juvenile justice system. Practice Goal: to minimize penetration into the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice system by identifying and addressing psychological, familial and educational issues in order to redirect youth. Note – defense team is the only part of the court team that has access to critical information that will have a direct bearing on the minor’s success or failure We all know that youth arrive at the courthouse steps b/c every other system has failed them, typically starting at home. We try to provide what kids in Pacific Palisades and San Marino have access to. Critical element – prevent penetration into the juvenile/criminal justice system – the deeper they go, the harder it is to get them out. Pay now, or pay later, but later is a lot more expensive.

Ancillary Resources Writs & Appeals Attorney IJDP’s Writs & Appeals Attorney provides Appellate Counsel Support – “Hotline” for Attorneys Pre-trial Writs The California Supreme Court has already granted two of our Petitions for Review, leaving us poised to make a meaningful impact on juvenile practice in Los Angeles. The remaining writs we have filed all involve issues critical to ensuring due process in the juvenile courts, including the Right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence, Right to appointment of necessary experts, Right to a competency hearing, And the right to be transferred to adult court only upon substantial evidence. Media and Research Petitions

Ancillary Resources Resource Attorney IJDP’s Resource Attorney consults with panel attorneys regarding Placement searches, School placement options and enrollment procedures, Strategic consultations regarding referrals to specialty courts, Appointment of experts on resource topics, Competency to stand trial protocol, And regional center eligibility and referrals. Direct representation of clients includes Litigating regional center access for intellectually disabled clients, Attending IHTP meetings for clients with intellectual disabilities, Coordinating delinquency/dependency crossover representation, And cooperating with the Learning Rights Law Firm on IEP and disability assessments. Additionally, the IJDP Resource Attorney creates and curates resource focused training materials and seeks out strategic partnerships with placements, school districts, and stakeholders in the juvenile justice community.

Ancillary Resources Investigator and Forensic Social Worker The IJDP staff Social Worker and Investigator provide direct support for the panel attorneys in addition to administering the social worker and investigator panels. Administration includes active recruitment of professionals for these juvenile-specific panels as well as management of referrals. The IJDP worked closely with Hon. Terry Bork and Hon. Michael Levanas to create these sub-panels of service providers. Judge Levanas worked with the directing attorney to create a simple, single-page investigator or social worker appointment form that can be submitted at arraignment. As of January 2018, the IJDP office has received a total of 86 referrals for investigators and 55 referrals for Social Workers.

Support Training Since January 2017, the IJDP has organized a steady stream of training for its attorneys based on observed and expressed need. How to Handle Juvenile Transfer Cases Under Proposition 57 (January 2017) Deputy Public Defender Rourke F. Stacy Utilization of IJDP Human Capital, Immigration Law and Juvenile Dependency (June 2017) Writs & Appeals Attorney Markéta Sims; Resource Attorney Erik Rodstrom; Dr. Angela Zartuche, LCSW; Attorney Supervisor and Crossover Director of the Children’s Law Center Los Angeles Barbara Duey; Deputy Public Defenders Graciela Martinez and Albert Camacho The Trial Lawyer’s College Action Method for Discovering a Client’s Story and Preparing Criminal Cases (August 2017) TLC Vice President Milton Grimes; Federal Public Defender Kim Savo The Nuts and Bolts of Experts with an Emphasis on Transfer (October 2017) LA County Public Defender Assistant Special Circumstances Coordinator and Forensic Science Coordinator Jennifer Friedman; Deputy Public Defender Rourke F. Stacy; Deputy Alternate Public Defender Maureen Pacheco Phoenix House (November 2017) Cory Brosch, LMFT; Erik Sherman, MPH, ASW Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency Court (January 2018) Writs & Appeals Attorney Markéta Sims; Resource Attorney Erik Rodstrom Discovery (Scheduled for March 2018) Jason Cox, Discovery Expert Trauma (Scheduled for May 2018) Dr. John Briere, Director of the Psychological Trauma Clinic, LAC USC Medical Center Data driven needs assessment – training.

Governance The IJDP has created a system of governance and review consistent with the pre-existing ICDA program rules. IJDP Billing and Discipline Committee This committee convenes to address departures from IJDP policies. It is entirely made up of members of the IJDP panel. IJDP Executive Committee The executive committee has discretion to review and implement policies and reviews decisions by the billing and discipline committee. The committee has one representative from the panel, but is otherwise populated with judges and members of the criminal bar. A full roster, including biographies, of the executive committee members is available on the IJDP website. To date, the committee has entertained one appeal regarding the directing attorney’s suspension of a panel member. The director’s decision was upheld unanimously. The IJDP directing attorney meets with each of the four panels on a quarterly basis to maintain an understanding of the needs of the panel and stay abreast of issues particular to each respective branch court.

Data The IJDP office monitors and assesses the effectiveness of its panel attorneys against the Guidelines for Attorneys Representing Youth in the Los Angeles Juvenile Delinquency Court, an established baseline for zealous advocacy. The following series of data-collecting devices and protocols were created to guarantee a new level of accountability and effective review of attorney performance. Case Tracking Forms Intake – Attorneys are required to file a case tracking form with the IJDP office within 48 hours of being appointed at arraignment. Case Resolution – Attorneys are required to submit data on every resolved case, including information on motions filed, the final charges, disposition, and other actions taken on the minor’s behalf. Attorney Progress Sheets – On a monthly basis, the IJDP provides attorneys pre-populated spreadsheets to keep track of case progress and provide other metrics for attorney assessment. Data Driven Attorney Assessment Using the data collected and metrics developed by the director, the IJDP conducts ongoing assessment of attorney performance. Each case resolution form provides data points allowing for qualitative evaluations based on actions performed by the attorney and case outcomes. This process provides real-time evaluations of attorneys in the field. This process allows the IJDP to focus training, tailor directives, and reinforce expectations for attorney performance.

IJDP Standards

Surveys The IJDP employs quality assurance surveys for clients, families, and stakeholders. On August 25, 2017, the IJDP distributed a survey to the courts, the Public Defender, and the Alternate Public Defender. Regrettably, the Public Defender’s office and the courts declined to offer any feedback on the panel attorneys. Starting in September 2017, the IJDP began to survey clients and their families after a case is resolved. IJDP program coordinators call the client and his/her family to administer a questionnaire regarding their experiences with their IJDP attorney. Responses have regularly reflected a strong rapport between attorneys and clients, trust and collaboration in the decision-making process, and general satisfaction with the quality of representation.

Data Early results of the IJDP’s intensive support, data-driven oversight, and focused training curriculum are encouraging. Based on a comparison to data collected in 2008 as part of the Kids Counsel and Costs study, the new IJDP attorneys have proven to be more active and have achieved improved outcomes for their clients. This data is preliminary and only captures a snapshot of the IJDP’s first six months of representation. Qualitative data has only been collected since June 2017; since then, only 247 cases have been resolved. The comparison group includes data for youth represented by Public Defenders and Bar Panel together; they are not differentiated. Since the study found that Public Defenders outperformed the Bar Panel, the current comparisons may underreport the improvement in activity and outcomes.

Rate of cases that had a contested detention hearing quadrupled from 3 Rate of cases that had a contested detention hearing quadrupled from 3.1% to 12.7% The percentage of cases that have an expert appointed has increased from 2.8% to 23.5%

The rate of written motion filing has increased by .8% 24.3% of IJDP cases had at least one contested hearing

Dismissal rate of cases has increased by 3.7% Percent of youth sent to camp decreased by 7.1%

Security The IJDP interprets its role as part of the defense team and, for that reason, takes significant measures to keep all data secure. The IJDP has erected a “conflicts screen” to separate our administrative role from our legal support roles. Data is stored on a secure LACBA server requiring internal authentication. All data is password protected and encrypted. Only IJDP staff are allowed to access the data and are under strict orders not to share information with anyone, regardless of the source or reason for the query. Additionally, all client and case information that the office tracks for reporting purposes is isolated and accessible only by the IJDP program coordinators and directing attorney. Other IJDP staff who directly represent clients have limited user permissions and cannot access sensitive information unless a conflict check has been performed.

Going Forward Challenges Court Litigation Training Programs Partnerships with Loyola Law School and UCLA Law School