L.A. Moves To Disassemble Part Of ‘School-To-Prison Pipeline’

As the nation watches racially heated events in Ferguson, Missouri unfold, the city of Los Angeles is going about disassembling what critics have called its “schools-to-prison” pipeline, ending policies that turned school issues into police issues. But the move is also a consequence of reduced juvenile court capacity, according to an official quoted in a New York Times article.
 
According to the NYT: “Michael Nash, the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Juvenile Courts, who was involved in creating the new policies, said that the juvenile justice system was overtaxed, and that the changes would ensure that the courts were dealing only with youngsters who ‘really pose the greatest risk to the community.'”
 
The NYT also reported that “… students 14 years old and under received more than 45 percent of the district’s 1,360 citations in 2013, according to the [Labor/Community] Strategy Center [a civil rights group] African-American students, who account for about 10 percent of the total population, received 39 percent of “disturbing the peace” citations, typically given for fights.” At one time, police in the program were issuing arrest citations for showing up late to school, a practice terminated in 2012.
 

City Watch Hits Flat-Fee Juvenile Defense Issue

 
The City Watch website is posting a story about the flat-fee juvenile defense system. At issue is how attorneys representing indigent youth are paid. The story by Gary Cohn is making the rounds as activists try to apply heat to officials who control the system.
 
Cohn writes that “… the problem is particularly serious in Los Angeles County, one of the world’s largest juvenile justice systems, where a controversial low-bid, flat fee compensation system for attorneys representing certain indigent youth raises systemic due process concerns. Under that system, contract attorneys — such as the one who represented Antonio, are paid an astonishingly low fee of $300 to $350 per case, regardless of whether the case involves shoplifting or murder. This is in a city where private lawyers are costly. Criminal defense attorney fees in Los Angeles can easily exceed $500 an hour.”
 
He also reports that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 voted unanimously to study the issue of panel attorneys’ compensation and other issues involving the county’s juvenile defense system. A series of recommendations is expected to be presented to the board this spring. 
 
Read the report, which also appears on publicCEO.com, here.

Juvenile Advocates Highlight Flaws In System

 

 

The advocacy website Juvenile Justice Information Exchange has posted a significant report detailing problems with how Los Angeles County provides legal representation for juveniles who cannot afford their own lawyer. 
 
The report notes that “… the problem is particularly serious in Los Angeles County, one of the world’s largest juvenile justice systems, where a controversial low-bid, flat fee compensation system for attorneys representing certain indigent youth raises systemic due process concerns. Under that system, contract attorneys — such as the one who represented Antonio, are paid an astonishingly low fee of $300 to $350 per case, regardless of whether the case involves shoplifting or murder. This is in a city where private lawyers are costly. Criminal defense attorney fees in Los Angeles can easily exceed $500 an hour.”
 
One suggestion is that the juvenile system work more like the adult system in Los Angeles where defendants are represented by attorneys from an alternate public defender’s office or by private attorneys paid an hourly rate based on the complexity of the case and seriousness of the offense – not the flat fee.
 
You can see the report here.

L.A. County Eyes Juvenile Justice Overhaul

 
The Los Angeles County supervisors have voted to study overhauling how juvenile suspects are defended in the county. They are responding to complaints that some juveniles are assigned public defenders while others are represented by contractors known as “panel attorneys” who are paid flat rates of $319 to $345 per case. A Loyola Law School report that looked at 3,000 Los Angeles juvenile cases last year found that people represented by panel attorneys got more severe punishment.
 
The Los Angeles Times story on the issue cited attorney Gary Farwell, who was head of the juvenile panel at Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center until it closed last year, saying that the county should review the resources allocated to juvenile representation, but defended the work of his colleagues. The Times quoted Farwell: “We have hardworking, devoted people who do far more than what they’re paid on many cases. It’s not the people who are the panel attorneys that are the problem. It’s the system of resources available to the panel attorneys that’s the problem.”
 
Read the story here

Governor, Judicial Council Dismiss ‘Open Government’ Provisions

 
In a likely blow to an already tense relationship, the California Judicial Council has successfully side-stepped an “open government” provision of the state budget that would have required that the group’s meetings be public. The Judicial Council, which is the administrative office of the justice system, had come under fire during the recent state budget process for its spending practices and for conducting most of its decision-making process in secret. Labor groups, in particular, argue that too many judicial admin decisions are made without public comment.
 
Those concerns earned provision to open Judicial Council process as part of a budget bargain. But last Friday, reports Courthouse News Service, “… after lobbying by California’s Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday ‘blue penciled,’ or eliminated, that transparency provision.”

Juvenile Court Judge Feeling Crappy About Justice System

 
Jim Newton’s L.A. Times column Monday offered a glimpse into what’s already happening to the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, which continues to be a victim of the state’s judicial rationing. Newton profiled Judge Michael Nash, who supervises the court and is heralded by some for increasing transparency in the “Dependency Court” where foster care cases are heard. 
Michael Nash, presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Los Angeles County (The Los Angeles Times published this photo as part of the juvenile court story.)

Michael Nash, presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Los Angeles County. (The Los Angeles Times published this photo as part of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court story.)

 
“I feel as crappy about things as I have in a long time,” Nash tells the paper, adding that “… it’s just very difficult to do the job in a meaningful way.” Budget cuts are, of course, part of that and he also laments what he feels are poor social worker decisions about taking kids out of homes – a process he thinks is partly because the workers worry about being “second guessed.” 
 
The column includes some eye-popping stats: “As of today, [Nash] said, each of the court’s 20 full-time judges handles roughly 1,350 cases at any given time, well above the recommended maximum. Often, matters of grave consequence must be heard and decided in minutes, even when they call for careful deliberation. A typical day’s calendar for a Dependency Court judge might include deciding how much and what type of medication to authorize for a child; whether to remove children from homes after allegations of neglect or abuse; and whether to place them in the hands of strangers or relatives, or return them to shaky parents.”
 
What will be more difficult to track is what happens to the court now that access to justice has been curtailed to the point that we’re bound to have more homeless, more bench warrants and more trouble hitting homes. You can read the column here and you can follow the writer on Twitter: @newton jim.