Language:
Search
 
Juvenie Delinquency Domestic Violence and Family Violence Court
State of California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
United States

The Problem

Domestic violence and child maltreatment have devastating effects on children who are exposed either as direct victims or as witnesses to the abuse of their parent.

The “cycle of violence” can be a generational phenomenon, where violent behavior is passed down from parent to child and learned as a way of interacting with others. Many studies have shown children who come from abusive homes are at greater risk of becoming adults unable to have healthy relationships. Like the parent whose abuse they endured or witnessed, these adults now perpetrate violence on intimates or family members.

The criminal justice system’s response has historically focused on these adult perpetrators of domestic violence, from arrest and prosecution to probation and batterer’s intervention programs. But justice systems were not specifically addressing the unique problems of juvenile domestic violence, when youth are violent towards their dating partners, and juvenile family violence, when youth are violent towards parents or siblings.

Juvenile domestic violence and juvenile family violence are distinct phenomena. But there is growing knowledge of their prevalence in our society. Sobering statistics indicate that abuse committed by juveniles is a “hidden epidemic”. A 2001 study indicated that one in five female high school students reported physical or sexual abuse by a dating partner. The Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council’s Death Review Committee, which has reviewed all domestic violence-related homicides in the county since 1993, has found that many of the total domestic violence-related deaths (from 11.7 to 41.6 percent per period) occurred in relationships that began when the victim was underage. Youth exposed to violent relationships are at risk for more serious or even deadly violence as adults.

Criminal justice interventions for violent youth were inadequate. Police merely referred incidents of youth violence to probation officers who informally counseled offenders before referring a matter for prosecution. Even if charges were filed against a violent youth, the criminal disposition may still result in an “informal” probation-based response. As a result, teen dating violence and family violence incidents were not being recognized as the serious crimes that they are. Parents and juveniles were not receiving necessary assistance to rehabilitate the young offenders. Victims also did not receive restitution to compensate them for their economic losses, information regarding disposition of their cases and the important community program referrals they needed in order to heal. The “hidden epidemic” of youth violence was addressed in 1999, when Santa Clara County established the first program in the nation to specifically intervene in issues of juvenile domestic and family violence.

Solution and Key Benefits

 What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Santa Clara County, California, is an ethnically diverse urban county with a population of about 1.7 million, best known as the home of Silicon Valley. San Jose is its largest city, home to nearly half the county’s residents. In 1999, under the leadership of Superior Court Judge Eugene M. Hyman, the Santa Clara County established the Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court— the first of its kind in the nation. The new program represented a broad collaboration between the court, law enforcement, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, Probation, and community service providers. The program provided a comprehensive, “youth-specific” criminal justice intervention that focused on uniting different divisions in a common effort to combat youth violence.

Its aim was threefold: (1) reduce the number of juvenile domestic and family violence cases in Santa Clara County; (2) provide rehabilitation services to abusive youth; and (3) deliver specialized services to victims, whether they were the dating partner or the parent/sibling of the offender. This unique, court-based program includes the following key components:
• Assessment. Domestic and family violence cases are identified at the intake process by specially trained probation officers who conduct a detailed risk assessment.
• Specialized Prosecution and Defense. Both the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office specially train attorneys to handle juvenile domestic and family violence cases.
• Dedicated Docket. One afternoon a week is set aside exclusively for juvenile domestic and family violence cases.
• Intensive Supervision. Abusive youth are subject to periodic reviews by the judge, as well as intensive probation supervision. Probation’s specialized domestic violence/family violence unit stresses accountability and competency skills for healthy relationships.
• Offender Programs. A major component of the court-based intervention is a “teen-specific” 26-week batterer’s intervention program, supplemented by substance abuse programs, mental health programs, or other counseling as needed.
• Victim Services. Program offers victims direct and confidential advocacy, support groups, legal assistance, court accompaniment, assistance with Victim/Witness claims, and resource referrals.

Instead of “informally” treating youth cases through Probation, under the new court system the vast majority (93%) of domestic/family violence cases in Santa Clara put offenders on formal probation. A formal probation model treats juvenile violence as a serious crime and focuses on early intervention to stop the violence and rehabilitate the offender. A 2003 study that tracked the specialized court three years after its inception showed that most youth who completed the 26-week intervention program were deterred from recidivism.

Actors and Stakeholders

 Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court was conceived and led by the Honorable Eugene M. Hyman in 1999, with the involvement and support of the following government and non-governmental stakeholders:

Government Agencies:
Santa Clara County Probation Department
Office of the District Attorney
Office of the Public Defender
Each of the 13 police departments in the county

Non-governmental agencies:
Victim services agencies (e.g. Victim-Witness)
Legal services agencies (e.g. Legal Advocates for Children and Youth and Support Network for Battered Women)
Domestic Violence Intervention Programs
As presiding judge of the Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court, Judge Hyman convened regular meetings to create the specialized court and establish inter-agency and intra-agency collaboration, established protocols and operating procedures, and reviewed and refined best practices.

(a) Strategies

 Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
 a.      What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The creation of the specialized court involved creating and implementing new ways of thinking about cases of youth violence through the following strategies:

 STRATEGIES EMPLOYED
“Cast a bigger net” through the creation of new intake and referral protocols: Law enforcement agencies in the county collaborated on creating new response protocols which required police to arrest where appropriate and to refer cases to juvenile probation for intake. By using more sophisticated models, cases involving violent youth were specifically screened by Juvenile Probation and referred to the District Attorney if Probation believed the offense fit the criteria for abuse. If a criminal case could be proven, the District attorney issued a petition. Initial risk assessment was crucial for evaluating victim risk and for issuing appropriate interim orders of protection where applicable.

Establish “zero tolerance” through training: Attorneys were re-trained to view juvenile violence consistent with the county’s “zero tolerance” approach to adult cases. The county prosecution and public defender received introductory training about domestic violence and its various forms that are likely to be presented in court. As result, both sides were able to resolve cases earlier. Training enabled prosecutors to properly charge cases and to request proper conditions of probation to supplement those requested by the probation department. The prosecution, in addition to probation and the police, were able to assist victims with more community-based referrals., These referrals increased the likelihood that not only would victims obtain the services they needed, but in addition, increased the odds that victims would appear in court and testify appropriately as a result of being less dependent on the defendant for financial and emotional support. Defense attorneys were better able to defend their clients as a result of increased trial skills and knowledge of probation conditions and probation violations. Attorneys could thus identify those clients needing specialized services in addition to intervention programs for domestic and family violence.

Keep “eyes” on the offender
- frequent Judicial review: Judge Hyman deemed frequent judicial reviews critical, not only for assessing abuser and stakeholder accountability but also victim safety. Frequent reviews kept the focus on the young offender completing their 26-week program and complying with all conditions of probation, including staying in school, avoiding drugs or alcohol, and following any protective orders in place relating to the victim.
- Intensive Probation supervision: The probation officers supervised domestic and family violence delinquents more intensely, providing victims greater protection while maximizing efforts at rehabilitation. Protocols also required that Probation provide referral sources for victims in every case.

Ensure accountability with tailored Intervention programs: the court intervention focused on sending the youthful offender to a 26-week intervention program for domestic and family violence. This program was developed to specifically address these forms of violence which are based upon models of power and control, tailored with a “youth-specific” message. The programs were delivered by 3 to 4 local providers, using a gender-specific curriculum.

Ensure victim safety through services and referrals: The program referred victims to non-governmental agencies that provided specialized services, including paternity testing, child support and visitation determination, and appropriate restraining orders. The program also gave victims access to restitution or their losses and access to counseling services through Victim-Witness.

(b) Implementation

 b.      What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
There were four key steps in the development and implementation of the Specialized Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court;
Idea conception
Juvenile domestic and family violence was not receiving the same analysis or attention it was given in the adult system. Thus offenders were not being held accountable or provided adequate rehabilitative services and victims were likewise not receiving referrals and service. Through Judge Hyman’s leadership, the importance of interceding in juvenile domestic and family violence cases as early as possible was identified in order to provide the supervision and intervention necessary to reduce the likelihood of youth becoming adult offenders. To address this concern three key priorities were identified: 1) reduce the number of juvenile domestic and family violence cases in Santa Clara County; (2) provide rehabilitation services to abusive youth; and (3) deliver specialized services to victims, whether they were the dating partner or the parent/sibling of the offender.
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders were identified amongst existing mandatory services within the juvenile system including; law enforcement, Probation services, the Office of the District Attorney and the Office of the Public Defender. Specialized domestic violence service providers including Victims services and Legal services agencies who previously had no formal role or communication with other stakeholders were identified and brought to the table
Domestic Violence Intervention Programs who were providing services to adult offenders were enlisted to develop and deliver programs specific to juvenile offenders
The development of a committee which held monthly meetings formalized the roles of all stakeholders. An important indirect benefit of the program is the increased communication and cooperation across different agencies.
Role identification
Roles, procedures and practices needed to be modified in order to achieve the programs key priorities. Traditional roles and interaction amongst stakeholders were reviewed and areas where roles needed to be revised, expanded or formalized were identified. For example, law enforcement adopted a mandatory arrest policy which was necessary to increase victim safety and to communicate to the offender and the community the seriousness of the offence. In addition, building on the strength of an existing dedicated juvenile domestic violence caseload, Probation was able to shift from a primarily informal process, to one which required that any domestic violence related act/case must be referred to the District Attorney for prosecution.
Protocol development
Protocols specific to each function were developed by the individual stakeholder agencies and brought to the larger committee meetings for input and recommendations and to determine areas of referral and intersection. Protocol development was essential to the long term success of the program ensuring continuity that survives changes in personnel amongst the stakeholders. Protocols also identify responsibility areas amongst stakeholders and require ownership and accountability. An annual protocol review process was recommended.

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

 c.      What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
Initially the police did not want to include juveniles in the mandatory arrest policies concerned about the current practice that once arrested and brought to juvenile hall, the youth were released. This was overcome by the assurance and subsequent practice that the detention policy would change to require that all juveniles brought to the hall would be detained through to a detention hearing before a judge the next day and that all domestic violence related cases would be referred to the District Attorney’s office for their review and possible petition filing.
Another initial obstacle was the lack of a specialized domestic violence intervention program specific to youth. This program required development and initially the providers were concerned about efficient use of resources and sufficient referrals to the program.
Finally, this program had been proposed during detention reform, specifically to detain fewer juveniles, taking place within the probation department. The case was successfully made that domestic violence was an exception.

(d) Use of Resources

 d.      What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The beauty of the specialized court is that all the players already existed in the intervention system; they simply needed to be marshalled to work together in a new way. To accommodate the program, existing resources and staff were re-directed. No hiring or fundraising was necessary. Subsequently grants were received subsequently for research purposes.
Previously underutilized resources, specifically victim services were more effectively activated by the approval of a special standing order of the court. This order allowed for ongoing release of confidential information on a limited basis to these agencies enabling them to directly receive victim information for expedited contact. This also relieved Probation services of the intermediary role of providing referral information to victims which historically had proved to be ineffective.

Sustainability and Transferability

  Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The model is clearly sustainable since it is still in operation almost 9 years later, under the leadership of two subsequent juvenile delinquency judges. It has not required specific funding of any kind. Santa Clara’s specialized court has been the subject of scholarly research on the Effects of Court-Based Programs on Recidivism (Sagatun-Edwards et. al., 2003 and Ueket, Sagatun-Edwards et. al., 2006), and has received national attention on television programs like Nightline, Good Morning America, 60 Minutes and Montel Williams.

Within two years of the court’s 1999 launch of the Juvenile and Family Domestic Violence Court, nearby San Francisco County replicated a similar model. The San Francisco program shares many similarities to the Santa Clara program—a specialized docket, review hearings, specialized probation unit, designated district attorney and public defender, intensive supervision, victim services, and offender programs. Yet the program varies in philosophy from the Santa Clara County court program, with most cases placed on informal probation under court supervision (only about 25 percent of family violence offenders in this study received formal probation). The county also does not have a law enforcement protocol that requires all suspected domestic/family violence cases to be brought to the juvenile hall for assessment by the specialized probation intake unit. Instead, law enforcement often brings less serious cases to the attention of various community agencies for informal intervention.

While the case load of domestic/family violence cases in San Francisco County is much smaller than that of Santa Clara County, the principle is the same; offer tailored solutions that map to our understanding of interventions that are most promising in the case of violent youth. According to the San Francisco model, juveniles are more likely to conform to the court-imposed conditions if they know that the petition will be dismissed at the end of successfully completing all programs. Thus, the San Francisco model can be described as primarily an "informal supervision and deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) program." Again, as in Santa Clara, San Francisco employs other options such as formal probation, depending on the seriousness of the case. The San Francisco model must be seen in the larger context of San Francisco County, which tends to have a much more liberal and less law enforcement-oriented response to crime than Santa Clara County.

Lessons Learned

 What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
Under a grant from the National Center for State Courts, researchers studied the effects of Santa Clara County’s specialized Juvenile and Family Violence Court in 2003 and 2006. The study found the specialized program had a deterrent effect on first-time offenders. However, youth who already had a criminal record were more at risk to recidivate. One year after the arresting incident, about thirty percent of offenders with prior delinquency had recidivated, regardless of any specialized intervention. Lessons learned included:

1. The importance of fostering interagency collaboration: It took months to develop smooth collaboration. Frequent meetings kept the players working toward the same goals.

2. The need for institutionalization: The program blossomed and thrived under Judge Hyman’s leadership, but no program can be tied to one particular judge. Courts maintain flexibility in making judicial assignments, and after 5 years, Judge Hyman was re-assigned. The successfully institutionalized project, however, continued in the hands of the next two judges

3. Ensure completion of the 26-week program: the key to achieving recidivism goals, especially with first-time offenders, included completing the 26-week program. Thus it was necessary to deal with alcohol or substance abuse issues as early as possible, and employ review strategies that encourage probation compliance. The ability and willingness of juveniles to successfully complete a probation program varies significantly between first-time offenders and repeat offenders. Juveniles with prior records were least likely to successfully complete probation. Further studies will be conducted on how juveniles respond to each facet of an intervention program so that strategies can be taken to improve successful completion rates.

4. Graduate sanctions: while a zero tolerance sends a strong message to abusers that abuse is unlawful, many arrested youth are first-time offenders, who get “stuck” in the juvenile system because they cannot complete conditions of probation. Programs that treat all offenders with the same intensity of sanctions may be counterproductive. Graduated sanctions that take into account the severity of the incident and extenuating circumstances may offer a more balanced approach to the experiences of the juvenile population.

5. Complement the specialized program with more mental health services: a sizeable proportion of juvenile domestic/family violence offenders have been diagnosed with mental health issues. At a minimum, a mental health component should complement justice system remedies. In some cases, mental health programs can offer additional services that may be more suitable than court-based intervention programs. Recognizing the intersection of mental health and juvenile delinquency, including teen domestic and family violence, has had an impact on the design and effectiveness of the intervention programs.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   State of California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Eugene Hyman
Title:   Judge of the Superior Court  
Telephone/ Fax:   408-808-7258
Institution's / Project's Website:  
E-mail:   four.justice@gmail.com  
Address:   191 North First St.
Postal Code:   95113
City:   San Jose
State/Province:   California
Country:   United States

          Go Back
Print friendly Page